Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Preamble

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Land Use

Mr. Wareing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to co-ordinate land use, planning, passenger transport and highway provision at county level.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Adequate arrangements for coordinating land use and transport planning already exist through the structure plan process.

Mr. Wareing: In view of the reports since 1972 which have suggested that co-ordination should take place at county level, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how his plan to abolish the metropolitan county councils will assist that process? Is he not aware of the danger that, if the county councils are abolished, district councils may be tempted to run their own bus services and existing countywide concessionary fare arrangements may be disrupted?

Mr. Jenkin: The structure plan system will continue when the GLC and the metropolitan county councils are abolished. The functions will be exercised by the London boroughs and the metropolitan district councils. The work will be done within a framework of general guidance which I, as Secretary of State, will give. Questions about concessionary fares and bus services should be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the co-ordination of strategic land use planning in the Greater London area is best and most relevantly administered on a regional basis? Will he confirm, for example, that the metropolitan green belt, which we all want to defend, is partly within Greater London and partly within the home counties around London?

Mr. Jenkin: Yes. Indeed, I had an excellent meeting on regional planning yesterday with the Standing Conference for London and South-East Regional Planning and we discussed precisely those issues. The standing conference has always had a valuable impact on coordinating the plans of neighbouring authorities in these matters. We also discussed briefly the green belt and, as my hon. Friend knows, I share his commitment to that concept.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the attempt to abolish the metropolitan county councils is a political gesture which is being made because they are

Labour-controlled? Is he aware that his mixture of privatisation and quangos to replace the county councils will not save money for working people, particularly on matters such as consumer protection and trading standards? I am a member of the West Midlands county council and I know that in that county it will be impossible for seven or eight district councils to maintain the standard of service provided by the county.

Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to reply in due course to the provisional report of the West Midlands district councils who say that they hope to be able to save 25 or 30 per cent. of the cost of the services that will be devolved to them from the county council.

Dr. Cunningham: That is nonsense.

Metropolitan County Councils

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has revised his estimates of overspending by the metropolitan county councils which were published in the White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities".

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): No.

Mr. Cartwright: I thank the Minister for that typically helpful reply. Has he found time this morning to read the first report of the Coopers and Lybrand independent study. which condemns the White Paper's estimates of overspending as both overstated and misleading? In the light of that damning indictment by this independent, eminent and respected firm of City management consultants, will the Government now drop their doctrinaire objection to facing the facts in relation to the metropolitan counties? Will they now co-operate with the second phase of the Coopers and Lybrand study to examine the Government's proposals for a plethora of elected boards, to see whether this really will save money?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am afraid that the Coopers and Lybrand report is a slow ball. It is slightly comic that, after the expenditure of considerable and legitimate remuneration at the taxpayers' expense, and although the White Paper estimates the increase in the volume of overspending to be 11·5 per cent., Coopers and Lybrand, presumably after giving its clients all the benefits of the doubt, states that it is 9·5 per cent. That is almost like the mountain shaking and giving birth to a mouse.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my hon. Friend accept that millions of people voted for the Government so that rate-capping could be introduced and that they would regard it as a betrayal if we or another place tried to repudiate that?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend need have no fears that the central manifesto commitment represented by my right hon. Friend's Bill will not be carried into law.

Dr. Cunningham: If the Government, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary do not accept the Coopers and Lybrand report, how do they refute its charge that the Government's claims about savings as a result of abolition of the metropolitan counties are misleading? Having made these claims, why does the Secretary of State now consistently refuse to inform the House and the country about his savings estimates?

Mr. Waldegrave: With respect, that part of the Coopers and Lybrand report has not yet been written. The part that has so far been published deals with past spending patterns, not with future savings. Those will be published in January. My right hon. Friend is not inclined to join in this sterile exercise with Coopers and Lybrand, because the assumptions behind the savings have not yet been finalised. I am reminded of the old computer addage that if garbage is put in, garbage comes out.

Direct Labour Organisations

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider giving direct labour organisations the right to tender for grant work in the private housing sector.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): No, Sir.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister not accept that many cowboy firms are making a lot of money out of grant work and are doing shoddy work? If direct labour organisations were allowed to tender for such work that would produce better results for the householder and ensure good value for public money.

Mr. Gow: No. Our policy of introducing more competition will best serve the people whose houses need repair.

Mr. Robert S. Jones: When considering this matter, will my hon. Friend also take into account the price of DLO annual reports? Some local authorities are charging up to £25 for such reports, which puts them well beyond the means of the ordinary ratepayer, to whom this section of the Act was supposed to apply.

Mr. Gow: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. O'Brien: Given that a number of direct labour organisations now operating on the tender basis can return a profit and that their reports are available to ratepayers, does the Minister agree that they ought to have the opportunity to tender for work outside local government —for example, private sector housing and hospital work?

Mr. Gow: No, Sir. It is not the business of local authorities to be involved in work as general builders. I am satisfied that the present system of competition is working satisfactorily.

Mr. Terlezki: Does my hon. Friend agree that the direct labour organisations should concentrate on doing a good job for the local authorities before they compete with the private sector?

Mr. Gow: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is what I said in my earlier answer.

Mr. Fatchett: If the Minister is so confident about the efficiency of private building firms, and so firm in his often-stated belief in competition, what does he have to fear if he allows the DLOs to compete in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)?

Mr. Gow: I fear for the best interests of the ratepayers, who would be likely to have to pay higher rates as a result.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman and his Government stopped their dogmatic and sectarian opposition to DLOs? Is he not aware that DLOs all over

the country have done a good job for the local ratepayers? Is he not also aware that DLOs today are, on the whole, the only bodies creating apprentices, while at the same time we hear from certain people in the industry, in certain areas, that they cannot find enough skilled labour because the cowboys have taken over? Is it not time that the DLOs were given an opportunity to tender, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) asked?

Mr. Gow: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, and he is not one who should talk about dogma and sectarianism.

Metropolitan County Councils

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff will be involved in servicing the proposed joint boards if the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council are abolished.

Mr. Waldegrave: This will be for each board to decide, although the relevant Secretaries of State will have power to specify levels of manpower or of manpower expenditure in the first three financial years after abolition.

Mr. Dixon: In his White Paper on the streamlining of the cities the Minister proposes to replace six metropolitan counties with between 24 and 30 joint boards, which will have power to levy their own precepts, 12 joint committees and dozens of giant complicated working arrangements? Is that how the Government intend to streamline the cities? Will not the Bill be introduced purely for political expedience?

Mr. Waldegrave: Of course not. The true comparison is with the existing structure of local authority committees, which is more complex than what we propose. It is essential that the lower-tier authority, which will be responsible for the services, and whose members will sit on the joint boards, should seek to minimise the need for new bureaucracy on the joint boards.

Mr. Conway: Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), and as I was a member of a metropolitan county council before I came here, may I ask whether it is not the case that for many of the Socialist members of metropolitan district authorities the metropolitan counties cannot he abolished soon enough?

Mr. Waldegrave: I have heard the same sort of comment myself.

Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister agree that it is a wicked act of vindictiveness to threaten the Tyne and Wear, other metropolitan councils and the GLC, and is it not a direct attack on our democratic processes and on the will of the people? Has he had any independent assessment made of the cost of winding up the Tyne and Wear council, the other councils and the GLC? If he has not, what is his assessment of the cost of carrying out this terrible process?

Mr. Waldegrave: Anyone would think that the position 11 years ago, when these metropolitan counties did not exist, had escaped the attention of the hon. Member. Opinions about savings are gradually being collected, and we already have the West Midlands estimate. Further savings will come in due course, depending on the results of the consultation period, and the


hon. Member will no doubt be satisfied to find that the estimates on savings will, if anything, be on the higher rather than the lower side.

Mr. Forth: When we have achieved the staff reductions which will undoubtedly flow from these proposals, what plans has my Friend in mind for the magnificent building just across the river?

Mr. Waldegrave: We have no plans as yet for that magnificent building.

Mr. Madden: As the Government have retained more management consultants than any previous Government in living memory, does the Minister not think that it is a bit saucy for him to rubbish a management consultants' report that is critical of his proposals to abolish metropolitan councils? Surely it is extraordinary that the Government should embark on the proposal without producing any feasibility study of their own.

Mr. Waldegrave: Far from rubbishing the report, I said that the difference between its figures and ours was minimal.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister recognise that there is all-party opposition to the proposals for the Inner London education authority? Will he confirm that Cabinet and ministerial colleagues in the Department of Education and Science are equally opposed to the proposal to take away directly elected and accountable authorities for London education and replace them with indirectly elected rate-capped authorities which have no support among those who know anything about and care for the education service in London?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman was talking nonsense in the last part of his supplementary question. We have presented the united plans of Her Majesty's Government.

Waste Disposal

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the powers available to control tipping of domestic and industrial waste on agricultural land.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): Although the provisions of the general development order should be sufficient to control indiscriminate tipping of waste on agricultural land, there have been problem cases. We are currently considering changes to the order to tighten up controls.

Mr. Miller: I welcome that assurance, but I must ask my hon. Friend whether he accepts that advantage is being taken of the latitude that is given in schedule 1(6) to the general development order to tip domestic, industrial and even poisonous wastes which have no connection with agriculture, and that the welcome recovery from the recession has led to a most unwelcome resurgence in this activity?

Mr. Macfarlane: I am aware of my hon. Friend's anxiety over a number of years on this subject. He has drawn to my attention a number of specific examples in his constituency. I am well aware of the point that he makes and I am grateful to him for doing so. I know that abuses have been taking place, and that is why we have gone out to consultation on ways of toughening the

controls. We are currently considering all the comments that we have received. I hope that early in 1984 we shall be able to tighten the controls sufficiently to meet the demands of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Indiscriminate tipping causes a great deal of hardship to those who live near the areas where it takes place, and it presents a considerable safety hazard. It is often difficult to identify the material that has been dumped. It is important that the Government speedily conclude the consultation and introduce regulations to stop this obnoxious practice.

Mr. Macfarlane: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that there is a need energetically to complete the consultation. Technically, the GDO should provide several tests, which must be satisfied, for the tipping of waste on agricultural land if that is to count as permitted development. Abuses have taken place and that is why we have gone out speedily to consultation.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my hon. Friend take note of the concern that is being expressed in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and in my own constituency over the proposed tip ar. Ulnes Walton in the Chorley constituency which will involve the hazard of the tipping of asbestos? Many of the local residents are up in arms about the proposal. Will my hon. Friend ask the Under-Secretary' of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), to answer as quickly as possible the letters that we have both written to him?

Mr. Macfarlane: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said on behalf of his constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover). I shall not comment on the specific case, but I can confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the Under-Secretary of State, will consider the problem.

Mr. Park: Is the Minister aware that his consultation will have to be considerably more widespread now that it is proposed to discontinue the metropolitan councils? Does he recognise that it will be necessary to have consultations with each of the district councils which go to make up the present county councils? This is another example of the scattering of functions that will follow the abolition of the metropolitan councils.

Mr. Macfarlane: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which will be drawn to the attention of the appropriate officials.

Mersey Docks

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet representatives of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and the Mersey Development Corporation to discuss the position of the Mersey docks.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have met representatives of each body since I have been at the Department and am ready to do so again—separately or together, as they may wish.

Mr. Roberts: 1 thank the Minister for that answer. When consulting the bodies concerned, will he use his good offices, having inherited the mantle of Minister with


special responsibilities for Merseyside, to urge his Government colleagues who have direct responsibility for this matter to make sure that the application for a free port is granted to Liverpool? Is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—of the great anxiety that exists that if free ports are given elsewhere and not to Liverpool all the effort which he, his predecessors and everyone else have put into making Liverpool a slimmer, trimmer and profitable port will be destroyed?

Mr. Jenkin: I was glad to see the last half year's results of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company showing a small profit for the first time for a number of years. I am aware that the company has put in an application for a free port and that the application was strongly supported by the development corporation. The matter is being considered by the Government.

Mr. Alton: As the first half year profits of about £3 million show that the port of Liverpool is beginning to thrive again, will the Secretary of State accept that opinion on both sides of the House very much favours the application which the port has put in for the granting of a free port to the city of Liverpool? Will he accept that there is much concern that his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the chairman of the Conservative party, has come out in favour publicly of the Felixstowe application, and that that has caused apprehension? Will he therefore use his best efforts to ensure that Liverpool's application is granted?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps referring to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment. The matter is being handled by the Treasury. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, is entitled to promote his own constituency interests, as we all are. I am well aware of the strength of the case that has been made for Liverpool.

Mr. Heffer: As the right hon. Gentleman has responsibility for Merseyside, and although I understand why he may be reluctant to make any public statements on the matter, could he perhaps give us a nod or a wink that he will at least support the application when it comes before the appropriate Cabinet Committee? As he is undoubtedly aware, the problems of Merseyside are absolutely dreadful, and the free port is essential for us.

Mr. Jenkin: I have taken the most careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Rugby Tour (South Africa)

Mr. John Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions have taken place between himself and the president of the English Rugby Union regarding the proposed tour of South Africa.

Mr. Macfarlane: My officials and I have had numerous discussions with the representatives of the Rugby Football Union. The president is well aware of the Government's views on the proposed tour.

Mr. Carlisle: I understand my hon. Friend's obligation under the Gleneagles agreement to discourage sporting contact with South Africa and his anxiety to promote sporting contacts with the Commonwealth, but will he, none the less, confirm that at the end of the day it will be the president of the English Rugby Football Union and his

committee, not my hon. Friend, who will decide whether to tour South Africa? Will he promise the House that he will put no undue pressure or coercion on them?

Mr. Macfarlane: The Rugby Football Union will decide in the spring of next year whether the proposed tour will take place. I am in no doubt that if the tour were to take place it would have damaging repercussions on the whole of Commowealth sport. While my hon. Friend is entitled to hold his own views and to state them forthrightly, he must be aware of the wider context of sport throughout the Commonwealth.
I shall not speculate about the vote that will be taken by the 50-odd delegates of the Rugby Football Union on whether the tour will take place, but I acknowledge the right, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated at the Dispatch Box before, of people to travel and be free to go anywhere in the world if they wish to do so. However, on this occasion I shall want to talk to the president of the Rugby Football Union next year to ensure that those concerned understand that at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Delhi we reaffirmed this country's commitment to the Commonwealth declaration of apartheid in sport.

Mr. Canavan: Apart from mere verbal condemnation, what exactly will the Minister do about the proposed tour next year by the English rugby team, and, indeed, the current tour of Wales by the South African youth rugby team? Is it not about time that the Government took action to impose a ban on such clear breaches of the Gleneagles agreement by the rugby authorities who, like the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), not only encourage racialism, but are acting selfishly against the interests of more international sports, particularly the 1986 Commonwealth games in Edinburgh?

Mr. Macfarlane: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to maintain a little cool on this subject. It is traditionally now only rugby which is giving rise to problems over contact in sporting links with South Africa. Strides have been made by governing bodies in this country to exclude South Africa from any sporting itinerary. I regret that the Welsh rugby authorities have decided to proceed with the proposed tour. I urge them, even at this eleventh hour, to reconsider the wider implications for sport in the Commonwealth and in Wales. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office has urged the cancellation of the tour in the strongest terms. The tour is contrary to the spirit of the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport. I cannot prophesy what I shall say to the president of the Rugby Football Union next year. The hon. Gentleman will be one of the last to know about it.

Mr. Stokes: Despite the supposed susceptibilities of the Commonwealth, why does my hon. Friend try to penalise South Africa, which is, after all, friendly to the West, at the same time as he welcomes games with Eastern bloc countries, which are our enemies?

Mr. Macfarlane: Perhaps my hon. Friend is not aware that just a few weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Delhi—

Mr. Stokes: It was not discussed there.

Mr. Macfarlane: I do not know how my hon. Friend knows, because I do not suppose that he was present


throughout those discussions. But I have to tell him once again that the subject was on the agenda, and the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport was upheld by all those present.

Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that the most evil form of discrimination is that based on a person's skin colour and that, although people may change their religions, or even their classes, they cannot change their skin colour? Does he agree, further, that a regime based on upholding that doctrine is evil and should get no support or sustenance from any quarter? If the Minister is serious about his disapproval of this proposed trip, why does he not tell the English Rugby Football Union that he will withdraw the passports of players proposing to take part?

Mr. Macfarlane: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's comments had some credibility, but his final sentence was absolute nonsense. He knows that there is no statute by which Ministers can withdraw passports.
We in this country understand only multiracial sport. I am told that in South Africa sport has made great strides in integration, but that recently Dr. Viljoen, the Minister for National Education, made it clear that school sport would remain segregated. That underlines some of the deeper problems. Anyone who underestimates the impact on Commonwealth sport seriously underestimates the current position.

Dr. David Clark: I congratulate the Minister on his stand on this issue. I assure him that he has the full support of every Opposition Member. May I ask him not to heed the extremist opinion held by some of his Back Benchers? The attitude of the English Rugby Football Union is extremely selfish. If it persists in this stupid tour it will put at risk the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh in 1986. Although the Opposition do not approve, and would not approve, of the withdrawal of passports, I ask the Minister to use his best endeavours to persuade the Sports Council to tell the English Rugby Football Union that if it persists in this tour no money will be forthcoming from the council to the union.

Mr. Macfarlane: That is a well understood formula for the links between the governing bodies and the Sports Council whenever a tour such as this is proposed. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the Government's stand. Whether it is a happy position for a Minister to have to rely on the support of Opposition Members and not on much from his own Back Benchers, only time will tell.
These are important topics. Above all, I urge right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to reflect upon the importance of Commonwealth sport. Rugby union football is a major Commonwealth sport.

Rates

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much he estimates rates will rise on average in 1984 following his announcement on rate support grant for 1984–85.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I refer the hon. Member to my statement last week.

Mr. Fisher: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have reduced the rate support grant from 61 per cent. in 1980–81 to a proposed 51·9 per cent.

next year? Does he not further agree that this reduction of 17 per cent. in Government support is worth £2,500 million? Does he not therefore accept that the Government have very considerable responsibility for the problems of local government today?

Mr. Jenkin: We were, of course, following the very good example of our predecessors, who equally reduced the grant from 66 per cent. to 61 per cent. in the years before we were responsible for this matter. It is widely believed on both sides of the House that it is important to make local authorities accountable to their electorates, and by reducing the proportion of their expenditure met by central Government and by the taxpayer we are doing just that.

Mrs. Currie: Will my right hon. Friend take time to study the accounts of the London borough of Lewisham. which invested £100,000 of ratepayers' money in a commercial pantomime and then censored the text, claiming that it was sexist?

Mr. Boyes: Is the hon. Lady in it?

Mrs. Currie: The name of the evil monster has been changed from Mr. Ken Livingstone to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) In the spirit of Christmas, would my right hon. Friend care to indicate which member of the Labour Front Bench, including my fellow Liverpudlian, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), he would like to nominate for the role of the good fairy?

Mr. Jenkin: I commend my hon. Friend's talent as a dramatist. Sadly, however, there are many pantomimes going on among some of the loony Left councils, not least in London, and Lewisham is just one example of that. The Bill that I published yesterday will introduce some sense to those local authorities that are bringing local government into disrepute.

Dr. Cunningham: If the Secretary of State is so concerned about local accountability—as he continues to say—why is he afraid to rest his case and to allow local electors to decide for themselves the level of services and rates? He mentioned the impact of his proposals on certain inner city areas, where the burdens and problems are greatest. But how does he explain the position of shire counties such as Buckinghamshire, or the fact that his proposals will reduce the rate support grant for Surrey by more than £9 million? Who is he punishing there, and why?

Mr. Jenkin: No doubt we shall have plenty of opportunity to explore this issue during the next few months. As I think the hon. Gentleman recognises, the nexus between rates and votes has become pretty slender in those areas that are dominated by extreme Left-wing Labour councils. It is all very well for ratepayers—and many electors are exempt from paying rates—to vote for higher services when the cost has to be met by commercial ratepayers who have no votes. It is the responsibility of this House to prevent the oppression of those who are facing quite unacceptable rate increases in some parts of the country.

Home Improvement Grants

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the administration of the home improvement grant system by local authorities.

Sir George Young: The success of our policies has meant that both numbers of grants and expenditure have reached record levels, and I expect historically high levels of expenditure to continue next year. I know that there have been difficulties in some areas, where there are backlogs of applications.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that these grants are usually disbursed on a first-come first-served basis, with no limit on the amount that each individual householder can claim, meaning that the council often has no funds left for householders who are last in the queue because it has disbursed large sums to householders who were earlier in the queue? Is there not a case, therefore, for limiting the amount that each individual householder can claim? Is my hon. Friend also aware that local councils sometimes ask for repayment of grants from householders who have purchased houses? Surely this is not in the spirit of the law.

Sir George Young: The application of the legislation is a matter for the discretion of local authorities. On my hon. Friend's first point, they have discretion to give a lower percentage than 90 per cent. or 75 per cent. if they wish to give the amount of money available to more people. But the individual processing of applications and the way decisions are taken is a matter for the local authority and not for my Department.

Mr. Hardy: I flatly reject any accusation that local authorities have been in some way deficient in this matter. Will the Minister confirm that over the past five years, if there has been a problem in regard to the home improvement system, it has been due largely to inadequate Government support and serious Government inconsistency?

Sir George Young: In 1978–79, £90 million was spent on home improvement grants. Last year the figure was £430 million. I totally reject the accusation that the hon. Member has made.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend share the alarm, as do many hon. Members of the House, at the inordinate length of time some local authorities take to process these applications — well in excess of 12, 15, 18 months? Does he agree that there is a case to be made here for the inspection of the properties eligible for improvement grants being put out to the private sector, thus eliminating delay?

Sir George Young: That is a very positive suggestion and it is being followed up by a number of local authorities. I accept that there is a considerable burden of work, but many local authorities are redeploying existing staff and finding other means, such as the one my hon. Friend mentioned, of improving efficiency and cutting into the backlog.

Mr. Leighton: Does the Minister not realise that under his administration home improvement grants are getting worse? There are fewer and fewer of them, with fewer people involved. It is no good Ministers shaking their

heads. Do they not realise that, with their policies on home improvement grants, there will be no need for administration at local level because there will be no grant to distribute? Answer that.

Sir George Young: Ministers were shaking their heads because we have the figure in front of us, which totally contradicts what the hon. Member has said. The figure was £90 million in 1978–79. It went up to £200 million in 1981–82, to £430 million last year, and this year it will be over £500 million.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend ensure that his Department's publicity makes it clear to members of the public that a discretionary grant is not something to which they are entitled? It is something that they can have only if the local authority can afford the continuing cost of its 10 per cent. and the interest on the borrowed money.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will be receiving today or tomorrow a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State which deals with the specific point about the funding of the local authority's contribution and the publicity.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the Minister first give an unconditional assurance, that where a local authority has agreed to pay a 90 per cent. improvement grant provided the application is made before 31 March next year, no matter when the grant is processed, the applicant will receive 90 per cent. of the approved cost? Secondly, can he confirm that those local authorities that try to satisfy the demands of private tenants and owner-occupiers by speeding up the processing of grants will not then be penalised under the rate support grant settlement by losing rate support grant simply because they have taken on extra staff to deal with the public demand for the improvement grants that he originally encouraged?

Sir George Young: The answer to the first point is no. Persons are eligible for grants at the higher rate, but at the discretion of the local authority.
On the second point, the rate support grant makes allowance for staff employed on that work. I hope that the town halls can redeploy existing staff to make an impact on the backlog.

Inner City Areas (Development)

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further proposals he intends to introduce to encourage new development to inner city areas rather than on farmland and open country on the periphery of conurbations.

Mr. Macfarlane: The Government are vigorously pursuing policies to encourage new development in inner city areas, and a number of new initiatives such as the urban development grant have been introduced. The revised draft of the housing land circular will give greater emphasis to the need to make full use of sites available for housing within urban areas and to the preservation of good agricultural land.

Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a growing awareness of a relationship between green field incursion and central urban evacuation and decay? Are there not lessons to be learnt from that linkage if, as some suggest, there is a one-to-one relationship between them? Would not we be serving the best interests of the periphery and the central urban areas by taking note of that?

Mr. Macfarlane: My lion. Friend is right, and that has been one of the major parts of our policy during the past four years. We believe in the restoration of the inner cities. If my hon. Friend were to look around some of the larger inner cities, he would find that some exciting projects are taking place. We intend to continue with that dynamism.

Mr. Litherland: When the Minister considers future proposals for inner city areas, will he bear in mind the derelict sites that were once factories in the industrial desert in my constituency of Manchester, Central? Is he considering giving grants for the refurbishing or demolition of those factories?

Mr. Macfarlane: A great many things might apply to that suggestion, and I need to look carefully at the particular cases. Since 1979 we have more than tripled the resources available for reclamation to over £75 million. The proportion spent on inner city projects, such as that touched upon by the hon. Gentleman, has risen from 7 per cent. at the end of 1979 to an average of more than 20 per cent. during the past four years. We intend to continue with that.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to encourage the rejuvination of inner cities such as London is to withdraw Government directives that force county councils such as Berkshire to build 8,000 additional houses in central Berkshire that are not wanted by the local people?

Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend advanced his cause in an Adjournment debate, to which I responded. If he wishes to see some exciting projects, I urge him to go to the east end of London and see what is happening at Beckton and the Isle of Dogs. I am sure that he will be encouraged by that.

Nature Conservancy Council

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now in a position to announce his decision on the staffing of the Nature Conservancy Council in the light of the Rayner report.

Mr. Waldegrave: Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Bennett: Can the Minister confirm that the Rayner inquiry into nature conservancy found that there was an appalling lack of staff and resources to carry out the functions of the Nature Conservancy Council, and no resources to carry out the new provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981? Is it not a major scandal that 80 per cent. of the sites of scientific interest that should have been registered have not been registered because of shortage of staff? Is it not high time that the Government announced a substantial increase in staff?

Mr. Waldegrave: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that the registration of SSSIs should proceed as quickly as possible. Discussions with the NCC on staffing levels continue, and will take that point into account.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: 1 was glad to hear my hon. Friend's reply. Under the 1981 Act, is it not vital that the programme for renotification of SSSIs is carried out speedily? Is there not also the vital task of identifying new sites that should be notified? Unless the NCC has that capacity, the goal of the 1981 Act will not be realised.

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is worth remembering that the early stage of renotification

is the slowest stage. The numbers being notified should increase quite quickly. However, I share the concern of both hon. Gentlemen about this matter.

Local Authority Associations

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the local authority associations.

Mr. Gow: Yesterday, Sir.

Mr. Lofthouse: When the Minister next meets the local authority associations will he tell them that if the Government's new clause 13 of the Housing and Building Control Bill is accepted by the House this afternoon, it will mean that many younger members of families will be able to purchase local authority bungalows rented by their aged parents or grandparents at a 60 per cent. discount? Will he tell also them that within a short period, following the death of the aged person, they will be able to sell that bungalow at market value and cash in a 60 per cent. profit?

Mr. Gow: The hon. Member will have seen from the Amendment Paper that the Government propose a right of pre-emption for local authorities if a sale takes place within 21 years.

Mr. Tracey: When my hon. Friend next meets the members of the local authority associations will he convey to them the amazement of the Government that the one or two sensible Opposition Members and members of the local authority associations have not realised what an important component of the economy local government over-expenditure is? Will he also tell them that if local government overspends it will have a debilitating effect on pensions, jobs and savings?

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is exactly right.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the Minister informed the local authority associations of the figure that the Government have in mind for inflation and wage settlements? If the Government have not so informed the local authorities., will the Minister now tell the House the figures?

Mr. Gow: Not formally.

Mr. Simon Hughes: What will the Minister tell the local authorities next time he meets them, in response to the concern expressed by the Association of County Councils—a Tory-dominated body—which voted 95 to 2 against the Government's proposals? Why is it necessary not only to have discussions with the association's groupings, but to brief individual Government Back Benchers to win their support at the expense of the taxpayer for the departmental computers in the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Gow: Such is the strength of the Government's case and so strong are the powers of advocacy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I expect the initial hostility of some county councils to abate as the debate proceeds.

Mr. Murphy: When he meets local authority representatives will my hon. Friend discuss the working of the rate support grant settlement as it affects shire counties with high rateable values, and the maintenance of education standards in counties such as Hertfordshire?

Mr. Gow: That is an important point and it would be proper to discuss it on the next occasion that I meet representatives.

Mr. Rooker: When the Minister next meets the association, will he confirm that the Secretary of State does not intend to remove the vote from the disabled and unemployed, as he implied on the Jimmy Young show this morning, when he contrasted the position of such people with business men who allegedly do not have a vote?

Mr. Gow: The allegation against my right hon. Friend is absurd and wholly without foundation.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that, as part of the Secretary of State's campaign grossly to distort and exaggerate the impact of rates upon businesses, he has briefed his Cabinet colleagues to the effect that business rates form half of industry's trading profits, although the Minister has just informed me that they form one quarter of that figure—that is, one eighth? When the Minister meets the local authority associations, will he say whether the CBI or the Minister is correct?
Will the Minister also take the opportunity to explain to the local authority associations that what the Secretary of State has told the House today about businesses paying a larger amount of rates, and the implications of what he said on the Jimmy Young show, suggest that he is seeking to re-impose a property qualification upon the right to vote, which was fought for on behalf of all working people for over a century?

Mr. Gow: Any information and any papers circulated by my right hon. Friend to his Cabinet colleagues—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) let me answer? He asked me a question and I am answering it. Any information and any papers circulated by my right hon. Friend to his Cabinet colleagues or others will have contained accurate information. In so far as there may have been any discrepancy between the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred it is because one set of figures was adjusted for inflation and the other was not.

Unused Public Land

Mr. Martin Stevens: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the 24,000 acres of unused public land owned by nationalised industries and statutory undertakers at 1 July 1982 has been sold since then.

Mr. Macfarlane: Between 1 July 1982 and 1 July 1983, the last date for which figures are available, 1,100 acres of land owned by the nationalised industries and statutory undertakings have been removed from the land registers following disposal, and a further 138 acres have been removed because the land has been brought into use.

Mr. Stevens: I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome news. What steps are he and his departmental colleagues taking to speed up the process still further?

Mr. Macfarlane: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend is satisfied with the rate of disposal of land from the registers. I would not pick out the nationalised industries and the statutory undertakings for special criticism. It is dangerous to generalise, but we are stepping up the pressure on owners — local authorities as well as nationalised industries—to explain what they are doing with such developable sites. I am anxious that we should proceed with this urgently throughout 1984.

Mr. Eastham: Can the Minister assure us that, despite the Government's anxious pursuit of their intention to get their hands on this land, they will use every endeavour to make sure that the land is not sold off to cowboys who will not do a proper reclamation job when they have got control of it?

Mr. Macfarlane: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Steen: Bearing in mind that there are still 104,000 acres on the land registers, will my hon. Friend consider persuading the nationalised industries to get rid of 10 per cent. of all their vacant land every year by putting it up for auction, without reserve, on the open market? Would not that be a quicker way of getting rid of the vacant land?

Mr. Macfarlane: I take note of my hon. Friend's proposal and will consider it. We must certainly race on with our programme and keep up the pressures on all who own vacant land.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As there is little unused public land available for housing development within the national parks, and now that the Government have reviewed the position with regard to section 52 agreements, preventing the Lake District planning board from introducing them, what measures will the Government introduce to ensure that there is no further spread of second homes within the national park?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman should table a question on that subject, because that question does not relate to the one I have just answered.

Council House Sales

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made with the sale of council houses to sitting tenants.

Sir George Young: Approximately 630,000 houses and flats were sold between April 1979 and September 1983 by local authorities and new towns in Great Britain, some 400,000 of them under the right to buy. The vast majority were to sitting tenants. In addition, housing associations sold about 40,000 dwellings, of which 28,000 were to sitting tenants. Continuing progress is therefore being made. My Department keeps under review the performance of local authorities in implementing the right to buy, and we continue to take appropriate measures to ensure that the rights of tenants are secured.

Mr. David Knox: How many local authorities are still dragging their feet over the sale of council houses, and how many of those authorities are Labour-controlled?

Sir George Young: My Department is in contact with about 200 local authorities, most of which are Labour controlled, about aspects of their performance in implementing the right to buy. Problems are taken up by my hon. Friend and myself, and we shall do all that we can to ensure that tenants get the rights conferred on them by Parliament.

Mr. Pavitt: In deciding policy on these matters, and in acting on them, will the Minister give consideration to areas such as Brent. which adjoins his own constituency, where there is a housing emergency? There is a waiting list of 15,000 and we pay £35,000 a week for bed and


breakfast for the homeless. Any reduction of housing stocks has disastrous effects upon the rehousing of those in urgent need.

Sir George Young: Selling one's council house does not reduce the nation's housing stock. In addition, the right-to-buy policy has generated some £2 billion, which has enabled the local authorities to make faster progress in tackling the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn our attention.

Mr. Hill: Will my hon. Friend re-examine the protection given to some large estate managers, such as Grosvenor and Cadogan, and consider whether the scheme for the sale of houses to tenants could be enlarged in a Housing Bill which he might introduce in the not too distant future?

Sir George Young: The Government have no plans to extend the right to buy to the private sector.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the Minister acknowledge that for the 1·5 million families who are homeless or in desperate need of housing but are still on waiting lists there is, in traditional terms, no room at the inn this Christmas? Will he also acknowledge that about one half of all housing capital expenditure is now being financed by the sa.e of council houses and that those sales are falling oft! Where will the money for any form of capital housing building programme come from when the boom of house sales, or rather the initial flush, has ended?

Sir George Young: There are 130,000 applications in the pipeline at the moment and the Bill that the House will discuss shortly gives the right to buy to a further range of tenants. I do not accept that there will be a diminution in the volume of receipts to the extent that the hon. Gentleman suggests. For the future, we shall continue to do all that we can to maintain the HIP allocations at an appropriate level.

Sellafield (Discharges)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a further interim statement about the recent discharges at the Sellafield plant in Cumbria.
During the six days from 11 November to 16 November, a series of abnormal discharges were made from the Sellafield plant of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. through the pipeline to the sea. The discharges followed the washing out of the reprocessing plant in the course of annual maintenance. Following a management error in the operation of that plant, radioactive liquids including solvent, and particulate matter of higher than normal activity were transferred to a sea tank. Attempts were made to transfer the more active material to another storage tank. This was only partially successful and a significant quantity of the radioactivity was discharged to the sea.
The radiochemical inspectorate of my Department and the nuclear installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive have been carrying out detailed investigations into the causes of the incident. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has yet received final reports. While it seems clear that there has been no breach of the authorised quarterly numerical limits on the discharge of radioactivity, there may well have been breaches of other conditions—those requiring exposures from discharges to be kept as low as reasonably achievable and those requiring proper records to be kept. It is also possible that there were some breaches of other conditions of the NII site licence. For these reasons, the matter has been brought to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions with whom my Department and the Health and Safety Executive are co-operating.
The most important thing is to prevent any repetition of such an incident. Both NII and my Department have notified BNFL of the further measures they wish the company to take. The measures so far taken by BNFL include a ban on the discharge of free solvent and an automatic cut-off system governing the discharge of liquid from the sea tanks. Other measures are in hand.
Extensive and continuing monitoring of the environment has confirmed that the risk of harm to the public was, and remains, extremely small. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is today answering a written question announcing the publication of a report on the marine environmental and agricultural consequences of the discharge. Copies are in the Library of the House. This shows that there has not been any significant effect on fish, shellfish or other foods. There is therefore no reason why people should not eat local catches or local farm produce.
Also published today and placed in the Library is a report by the National Radiological Protection Board, prepared for my Department, on the distribution and analysis of samples of seaweed and other flotsam collected from the beach 10 miles either side of the pipeline. One conclusion of the report, confirmed by separate analysis carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is that the radioactivity in the samples was well below the level that would constitute any hazard to the general population in the area. The NRPB's main concern,

however, is that anyone handling the more active samples taken from the beach could exceed the annual dose limit for the skin after only comparatively brief direct contact.
It was for that reason that on 30 November my Department advised the public to avoid unnecessary use of the beaches on this stretch of coast for the time being. I have to tell the House that radioactive flotsam is still occasionally being found so that it is not yet possible to withdraw that advice. It remains true that any risk of contamination to the public is extremely small. People should nonetheless continue to avoid unnecessary use of the beaches between St. Bees and Eskmeals and should not handle objects washed up by the sea. Monitoring will continue and my Department will keep the public fully informed.
As I have said, this is an interim report which I have thought it right to make to the House before we adjourn for the Christmas recess. The Government intend that the reports both from the DOE's radiochemical inspectorate and from the nuclear installations inspectorate should be published as soon as possible after they are received by Ministers, provided that there is no risk of prejudicing any legal proceedings. When we have the final reports I will make a further statement to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to make what, as he rightly says, can only be an interim statement. I agree that it is of the utmost importance that the final report of the nuclear installations inspectorate and the radiochemical inspectorate should be published for the benefit of the House, the country and, not least, my constituents in west Cumbria. A number of questions arise from the statement.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the real anger and concern felt by the community in west Cumbria and people much further afield about this incident, which is widely regarded as something that simply should not have happened? Does he agree that it calls into question the competence of management at the plant and that public acceptance of the nuclear industry's operations has thus been unnecessarily damaged?
Why was the eventuality of a discharge of material in error to the sea not recognised when the nuclear installations inspectorate carried out its exhaustive examination of the Magnox facilities and the plant in 1980 and reported to the Secretary of State in 1981?
The Secretary of State referred to possible prosecutions. Would such prosecutions be brought against the company or against individuals? As it is now clear from published information that British Nuclear Fuels Limited has systematically reduced its discharges into the marine environment over a period of years and is capable of operating satisfactorily within much lower discharge limits, should not that greater control of discharges bring pressure to bear on management to prevent such an incident occurring again?
The industry has hitherto worked on the principle of discharges being as low as are reasonably achievable. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is clear from the current public reaction and concern that we should now move as quickly as possible to the principle of discharges being as low as are publicly acceptable? Does that not mean that discharges of plutonium, caesium and other actinides should be eliminated as soon as possible?

Mr. Jenkin: The whole House will have much understanding for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and


for him as the hon. Member concerned with the incident. We entirely agree that it should not have happened and, as I said in my statement, it is most important to ensure that it never happens again. I further agree with him that it is of the utmost importance that the public, both locally and nationally, should have complete confidence in the management of that nuclear plant. That is of the highest importance for the continuation of our nuclear programme. It would be better if I did not pronounce on the competence of the plant's management, because we have not yet received the final report, and the matter may be subject to court proceedings. The Director of Public Prosecutions will decide whether the company or individuals will be prosecuted.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the 1980 nuclear installations inspectorate report on the Magnox plant, but it would be wiser to await the final report. The House will agree that the avoidance of prejudice of legal proceedings should be an overriding consideration. The latest legal advice that I have received is that that need not prevent an early publication of the two reports.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that in my first statement I said about lower discharge limits that the Government's intention was to work for substantially lower authorisations, and that, if the circumstances seemed appropriate, we would certainly consider still lower authorisations so that the plant would have to comply with the best world standards for the discharge of radioactivity.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I welcome the candour with which the Secretary of State deployed the serious facts that have emerged from Sellafield. Will he ask the agencies responsible to examine the apparent magnification effect, which is 10 to 20 times greater than that in the sea at present, which results from radioactivity coming ashore through sea spray? I hope that the Secretary of State will encourage the agency to act quickly on that serious problem.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that complete frankness with the public is an essential ingredient for public confidence. He will have seen the recent report in The Guardian commenting on the research at Harwell financed by my Department. We have not yet received the full results of it and should wait for them. If radioactivity through sea spray is a source of anxiety, the Government will take the steps open to them to deal with it.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if the DPP does recommend prosecution, it will be a just return to BNFL for having pursued Greenpeace for contempt of court, which led to its being fined £50,000 that it could ill afford? Will he address himself to the problems in my constituency, where great damage has been done to the tourist and fishing industries, and will he consider paying the fullest compensation to those who have suffered losses?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the population of west Cumberland will be satisfied only when the objective of zero discharge of radioactive materials is fully realised, even if its expense falls on the Government? In west Cumberland we believe that, if we are to retain the plant, the Government and Parliament must ensure that adequate financial resources are made available to us to avoid all possible risk.

Mr. Jenkin: The £50,000 fine is a matter between the courts and Greenpeace. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the judge expressly said that he intended to leave that organisation with the ability to protest peacefully. It was a matter of trying to bring some pressure to bear on the organisation to stop interfering with the pipeline BNFL wanted an assurance that the interference would cease.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about cornpensation. That must await the publication of the report, when we can consider whether there is a case for awarding compensation. As to zero discharge, I shall not add to what I said in reply to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) a moment ago about authorisations. If the ALARA principle—as low as reasonably achievable—is properly enforced, it can produce an extremely low discharge. However, the Prosecution might wish to consider breaches of that principle.
It might be of some reassurance to the House—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of it—that only this week Copeland borough council decided, after much consideration, to grant planning permission for the THORP plant—the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—at Sellafield. That demonstrates its confidence in the future, justly given, because the construction of the plant will create about 3,000 extra jobs. and its operation will create about 1,000 extra jobs, in an area that badly needs new employment.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Although I welcome the candour of my right hon. Friend's statement, does he recognise that it is a very grave statement" Does he recall that some Conservative Members voted against the Town and Country Planning (Windscale and Calder Works) Special Development Order 1978 introduced by the then Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Benn, on the grounds that it did not provide appropriate assurances on waste disposal? As it would appear, prima facie, that this episode was the result of serious mismanagement, does my right hon. Friend agree that this arouses proper concern about the entire future of the nuclear industry? Given the fact that this is a temporary and immediate problem, is my right hon. Friend aware that we have not begun to resolve the long-term problems of radioactive waste disposal? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In this context, will he inform the House about the work done, or proposed to be done, by the Natural Environment Research Council?

Mr. Jenkin: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the matter. I have not sought to conceal from anyone that this is a grave incident that should not have happened. It is right that the House should be given the fullest information.
However, I disagree with my hon. Friend's statement that the incident calls into question the future of the nuclear industry. The low risk to individuals, even from such a serious accident, compared with the serious dangers faced by miners or North sea divers in securing supplies of fossil fuels, shows that the British nuclear industry has a fine record. Since further research must be carried out on acid rain, and on the fact that nuclear power is one way of reducing the impact of such pollution, I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider his views.
As to the long-term disposal of radioactive waste, my hon. Friend will know that I made a statement about the land-based storage and disposal of intermediate wastes, and the procedures that I announced are now under way.


It has been decided that for the most serious waste—high-level waste—no steps should be taken for 50 years to dispose of that material until it is in a condition that can be much more readily handled. The disposal of nuclear waste is a matter of the highest importance. I shall have the advantage of the advice of the radioactive waste advisory board, headed by Professor Matthews, from whom I expect to receive the most competent and expert advice.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: As Britain leads the world in scientific knowledge about the reprocessing of nuclear material, is not the Secretary of State's statement thoroughly complacent and should he not review some of his comments about the THORP plant and the replacement of the technology at Sellafield, so that liquid discharges into the sea can be eliminated far sooner than is suggested by the Department's figures?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that no information will be withheld from the nuclear inspectorate or any other agency that is inquiring into the matter on the basis that it is sensitive from a security point of view? Will all the information be made available prior to the prosecution?

Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the decision made earlier this week by the Copeland borough council to grant planning permission for the THORP plant, which is essential if the Sellafield plant is to be able to take many of the reprocessing contracts that are on offer, is a measure of the local community's confidence in the long-term future of the plant.
I do not wish to say any more about the limits on authorisations than I did in answer to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). We want to ensure that standards are as high as they can be. The costs must fall on those who use the plant and ultimately on the users of electricity and other services that depend on nuclear power.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important statement and many hon. Members wish to question the Secretary of State. I ask for brief questions, please.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rapid response to the incident and the great concern shown about it should afford some reassurance to hon. Members whose constituencies are. like mine, heavily engaged in the nuclear industry?

Mr. Jenkin: As I said earlier, I believe that it is right that the public should be given every fact that can be made available. I should tell the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) that there is no suggestion that there has been any withholding of information. Both inspectorates have had total co-operation from the staff of BNFL. I know that that will continue.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State accept that, without being more alarmist than the latest discharge requires us to be, we must accept that it is clear that the nuclear industry is not accident-free? Does he agree that, for that reason, we need

to implement his assurance, for which the Liberal party, like other parties, is grateful, that there will be complete frankness in future?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that all the material facts in the report of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be made available to the House immediately it is available to him and that all the four inquiries that are being held will be pulled together so that complete information can be presented at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood what I said. There will not be a report by the DPP; he has to consider what legal proceedings might be taken, by whom and against whom. The two reports being published today are the NRPB report on radiological hazards and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food report on shellfish, seafish and agricultural produce.
The two reports that are still to be published and which I have said that it is the Government's intention to publish are those of the nuclear installations inspectorate and my radiochemical inspectorate. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for frankness. I share his view.

Sir John Osborn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that radioactivity has so far been within international as well as national limits? Will he agree that cheap electricity will be all-important in the next century and that the hazards that he has outlined must be related to the problem of atmospheric pollution from the coal-powered generation of electricity and the problem of acid rain? Does he agree that those problems must be considered in proportion?

Mr. Jenkin: I can confirm that the discharges have been within international limits, but they are monitored on a rolling quarterly basis. In any brief period, that may give rise to a localised contamination that does not comply with the general duty to keep discharges as low as reasonably achievable. That is the position we face. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is right to look at all these energy sources together. The pollution of the environment and hazards to health must be taken into acount when decisions are taken.

Mr. George Foulkes: The Secretary of State will be aware of the concern on the west coast of Scotland about the effects of these discharges in Scotland. Is he aware that Dr. Richard Scott of the molecular biology unit at Edinburgh university, when carrying out investigations on behalf of local authorities at Maryport and Palnackie, found BNFL to be totally obstuctive? Is he also aware that Dr. Scott's information showed that the effect of sea spray is even worse than Harwell says and that the effect of dried up silt from these harbours can be extremely dangerous? In view of Dr Scott's information, will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter?

Mr. Jenkin: I am, of course, aware of Dr. Scott's work. The hon. Gentleman has made a number of fairly serious allegations, but I assure him that, despite monitoring as far afield as Walney Island near Barrow-in-Furness and the Scottish shores of the Solway firth, no objects comparable with those found on the Sellafield beach have been discovered there. That must be


reassuring. I suppose there remains a remote possibility that objects might be found. That is why monitoring is continuing.
As to Marypon, which I visited just the other day, Allerdale district council has commissioned the National Radiological Protection Board to advise on the acceptability of using dredged silt for landscaping at Workington, and it will be sensible to await that report.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business before the House and we have a heavy day in front of us. I therefore propose to call three more hon. Members from each side.

Mr. Richard Alexander: (Newark): Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not get too hysterical about a discharge level from which there is no real danger to the public and that if we get too hysterical it will only encourage concealment of other minor mishaps within the nuclear industry?

Mr. Jenkin: I hope that nothing I have said, either today or since the incident was discovered, could possibly be described as hysteria. It is right to be frank, but it is equally right that in no circumstances should one arouse public alarm when it is not justified.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: You should not be complacent.

Mr. Jenkin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw any suggestion that I have been complacent. I have been as frank with the House and the public as any of my predecessors.

Mr. Atkinson: Then dissociate yourself from what the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) said.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend has made a fair point. If accidents happen, we should ensure that those who know about them are equally frank and report them so that the consequences can be dealt with without delay.

Dr. M. S. Miller: (East Kilbride): Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that this further mishap raises doubts in the public mind and the minds of hon. Members who believe that nuclear-powered energy is necessary because fossil fuels are running out? It is gratifying to hear that fish and fauna in the sea are not significantly affected. However, the environment is affected year after year by more radioactive pollution, of which we want less and not more. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that no level is safe and will he allay public anxiety by ensuring that incidents such as this, which pile up one after another, are controlled so that they do not happen again?

Mr. Jenkin: I am glad to respond to the hon. Gentleman's question. BNFL has, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) remarked, significantly reduced the level of discharges over the past 10 years. Next year, there is due to come on stream the so-called SIXEP — the site ion exchange plant — which will significantly lower the standard of discharge, at which point it will be right for the authorising authorities to revise the authorisations, and we have that in mind. We are prepared to consider further tightening up of the organisation if that appears to be appropriate.

Mr. Michael Fallon: (Darlington): I welcome my right hon. Friend's frankness, but do not the interim reports and

the continuing erosion of public confidence strengthen the case for a further national review of nuclear waste and residue, and an urgent revision of the criteria that he has set NIREX for the disposal of such waste away from centres of population? Will my right hon. Friend take further advice from the advisory committee before any further progress is made with regard to a deep mine repository?

Mr. Jenkin: I am well aware of the anxieties aroused in the north-east about the possible use by NIREX of the anhydrite mine at Billingham. It was only last year that the comprehensive review of the disposal of waste was completed and the results published in a White Paper. It is only a matter of weeks since I published the draft criteria on which we are now consulting for the land-based storage, about which I made a statement. We should let those processes run for a while before we decide that there should be a further major revision. I understand the points that have been made about disposal in areas of high population.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister expressed a proper concern for the avoidance of pollution, and referred to acid rain. Will he ensure that his concern is made known to the Department of Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry so that projects that could reduce acid rain through the development of fluidised bed combustion can go ahead with no further delay? Will he assure the House that bodies that contribute to the adequate monitoring of nuclear pollution, radioactivity, and so on, receive adequate support, and that the Natural Environment Research Council has sufficient staff and funds to carry on that duty?

Mr. Jenkin: Any questions about NERC are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting the expenditure of vast sums of money, when the research base that would appear to justify that expenditure does not yet exist. It is right that research should be carried on, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has taken note of the substantial moneys being spent by the CEGB and others to try to reach a greater finality on this. As yet, there is no scientific agreement as to the connection between discharges from thermal power stations and the acid rain that is affecting some parts of the continent of Europe.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I welcome the action that my right hon. Friend has taken, and the fact that he does not wish to be complacent about this matter, but should we not treat this incident in the perspective that it deserves? Can he confirm that the discharge was about 600 curies, that the total activity in the tank was 4,500 curies and that, even if the whole lot had been sent into the sea, that would still be within the limits prescribed by the regulatory authorities? What action has BNFL taken immediately to prevent any such incident occurring again?

Mr. Jenkin: On the details of the figures to which my hon. Friend referred, it would be wise to await the report. I asked the inspectors in my Department, together with the chief scientific advisers to the Department of Energy and others, to do their best to satisfy themselves as to how much of that 4,500 curies may have gone down the pipeline. They came to the conclusion that it was probably a significant part of it. My hon. Friend is right in saying that this is still below the international levels—although there is nothing to be complacent about.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Why not open them up as swimming baths, then?

Mr. Jenkin: Because there is no need to be complacent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) will have heard in my statement the immediate steps that BNFL has taken as one of a number of necessary measures to make sure that such a thing cannot happen again.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept the Minister's statement, and recognise that he is not complacent, but what conversations are going on with the Northern Ireland Office, bearing in mind that water moves across the sea and the pollution affects our people? Without adding to the hysteria, I must inform him that there are those who are alleging a link between radiation and certain incidents of malformation in birth and leukemia in the Province.

Mr. Jenkin: That question raises wide issues, and the hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has asked Sir Douglas Black to conduct an investigation about the incidence of clusters of cancer and whether there could be any connection with the discharges from the pipeline and such clusters. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is kept fully informed of all the developments in this case.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the Secretary of State said that this was an interim statement; we shall no doubt be returning to the subject again.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 27 JANUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Austin Mitchell
Mr. fain Mills
Mr. Nicholas Soames

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act 1983
2. British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Act 1983
3. Petroleum Royalties (Relief) Act 1983
4. Coal Industry Act 1983
5. Staffordshire Act 1983
6. Milford Haven Conservancy Act 1983

Regional Assemblies (England)

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish regional assemblies in England; and for connected purposes.
It is the spirit of the Bill rather than its detail to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. I must be one of the few hon. Members who fought to get elected specifically to reduce the influence of Parliament and to hand back to people the power to control their own destinies. Increasingly, over the past 40 years, the power has shifted from local government to central Government, and the power and influence of the Prime Minister and of the great Civil Service bureaucracies have grown at the expense of local government and a genuinely participative democracy. Increasingly, Parliament has sucked in and arrogated to itself all the processes of important decision making.
That shift has been quietly pursued by both Labour and Tory Governments alike, and has been brought to its ultimate conclusion by this Government. They promised differently, of course. The Conservative manifesto of 1983 said:
The Conservative party believes in encouraging people to take responsibility for their own decisions.
However, no Government in recent times have more enthusiastically and systematically destroyed local government than this one. The final coup de grace came yesterday with the announcement of the long-expected rate-capping legislation. Insidiously, the constitution has been changed. Local government is now a hollow sham, whose duties are little more than acting as a land agent for Westminster. Meanwhile, Parliament has had to deal with everything from the issue of dog licences to the declaration of war. I remind hon. Members that not many weeks ago we did just that. At 4 pm we talked about dog nuisances and at 7 pm about cruise missiles. Meanwhile, the bureaucracy, that fourth and perhaps most powerful estate in the British constitution, has grown fatter and more powerful on the fruits of institutional centralisation.
One belief forms the starting point for the political beliefs of the Liberals and SDP colleagues alike. It is that in any system of government it is the individual above all who should come first and not the state. It is that principle that forms the fountainhead of all our policies. It is a principle that differentiates the Liberal party from the Tory and Labour parties. The Tory party believes that the individual is at his best only when led, and preferably by someone who has had conferred upon him the divine right to lead. The Labour party believes that the individual is at his best only if he is incorporated in some lumpen proletariat.

Mr. George Foulkes: Rubbish.

Mr. Ashdown: We hold an unshakable belief that a free society and a strong democracy can be created and maintained only if it is founded on the principle that the people have a right effectively to participate in the decisions that shape their own lives. We hold that principle in the workplace, in the operation of the ballot box and, above all, in the process of government itself. Alone among the parties in this place, we are prepared to say to


the people of Britain, "We trust you— not just to do what we say but to make your own decisions over your own lives."
In this sense we see ourselves as members of a liberation movement that is dedicated to breaking the crushing power of a leviathan bureaucracy. It is a movement that is dedicated to revitalising local government institutions and to handing back to the British people the power which, in a true democracy, would be and should be theirs.
My Bill is based on the principle that no decision should be taken at a higher level of government if the decision can be taken at a lower level with equal or greater effectiveness. English regional assemblies, together with Parliaments for Scotland and Wales, would take over many of Westminster's current functions, leaving the House free to concentrate on problems that must be solved nationally. The establishment of the assemblies could pave the way for the abolition of the most ineffectual tier of local government while providing democratic bodies to take on the functions of unloved quangos such as health authorities, electricity boards, regional water boards and the gas boards. The Bill would establish a welcome opportunity for a review of local government finance. It is important to ensure that the assemblies do not have to fight annual battles with Whitehall over funding. The Bill is intended to set up a coherent federal system for the government of Britain and is not designed to provide for yet another whimsical reorganisation of local government.
Those who criticise and oppose the Bill will no doubt do so on points of detail. I ask those who wish to vote against the Bill to take note of the spirit of the Bill and not points of detail. Do the opponents of the Bill believe that we politicians have run things so well that no change should be contemplated? Do they agree that the people of Britain have been excluded for far too long from the daily process of their own government? Do they have faith enough in them to allow them a full part with Parliament in making their own local decisions? Liberals have that faith and we are proud of it.
The House will recall that John Stuart Mill said:
A State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands, even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can be accomplished.
The Bill is the first shaking of the foundations and the first part of a great programme of reform in which we Liberals and our SDP colleagues believe so strongly. Its aim is no less than to make the powers of the British state weaker and the powers of the British people stronger. It is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Mr. David Alton, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Michael Meadowcroft, Mr. David Penhaligon, Mr. Stephen Ross and Mr. Richard Wainwright.

REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES (ENGLAND)

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: accordingly presented a Bill to establish regional assemblies in England; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 January 1984 and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

Orders of the Day — Housing and Building Control Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 12

MEANING OF 'SECURE TENANCY'

'(1) In section 28 of the 1980 Act (secure tenancies) paragraph (d) of subsection (2) and the word "or" immediately preceding that paragraph shall be omitted and after paragraph (a) of subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(aa) a county council:".

(2) In schedule 3 to the 1980 Act (tenancies which are not secure tenancies) paragraph 3 shall be omitted and after paragraph 2 there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—

"2A. A tenancy granted after the commencement of Part I of the 1983 Act is not a secure tenancy if—

(a) within the period of three years immediately preceding the grant the dwelling-house has been let on a tenancy falling within paragraph 2 above;
(b) the tenant has not been a tenant of the dwelling-house for more than three years; and
(c) not later than the date of the grant the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant of the effect of this paragraph.

Premises provided for members of police forces
2B. A tenancy is not a secure tenancy if the tenant is a member of a police force and the dwelling-house is provided for him free from rent and rates.".'. —[Mr. Gow.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 93 and 94, 97 to 1(12 and 104 and 105.

Mr. Gow: We are proposing in the new clause and the amendments grouped with it that county council tenancies should be brought within the broad scheme of the security and right-to-buy provisions of the 1980 Act. That proposal is subject to most important safeguards in respect of the operational requirements of county councils. The legislation, as amended, will apply to all right-to-buy landlords. The amendments are designed to replace the current special provisions for new town housing and district council dwellings held under other than housing powers.
I shall explain the reasons for my concern about the current position of county council tenants. Most county council tenants hold their properties on tenancies let by councils for purposes closely related to one or other of their functions. Obvious examples are accommodation provided for police officers, wardens and caretakers' housing and dwellings let on a short-term basis pending redevelopment. County councils were not included in the 1980 legislation because of the specialised nature of the lettings that I described, where a right to buy would clear), not be appropriate.
However, we have become increasingly concerned about the position of county council tenants whose homes are no longer required by their landlords for strictly


operational purposes. [Interruption.] There are significant numbers of tenants in county council properties originally acquired for development, but where development plans—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but some of us want to hear what he is saying. Could we not have a wee bit of hush in the House while the Minister is speaking so that we may at least follow what is happening?

Mr. Speaker: That is a splendid idea.

Mr. Gow: I was saying that there are significant numbers of tenants in county council property originally acquired for development, but where development plans have since been abandoned.
There are county council dwellings that have been declared surplus and let to families from the district council's housing waiting list. There are other categories of dwellings with sitting tenants, which the landlord no longer needs for operational purposes. I receive a regular flow of representations from the tenants of county councils occupying such property, both from hon. Members and from the tenants direct. Those tenants do not understand why they should be denied the right to buy simply because their landlord happens to be a county council rather than a district council. They are right to question the equity of the current rules.
At present, we rely on voluntary arrangements with county councils. Under the general consents for council house sales, county councils have powers to sell surplus dwellings to sitting tenants at right-to-buy levels of discounts, but few councils have, in practice, taken advantage of that discretion. Of those which have done so. many have done so in a selective way—selling only to particular categories of sitting tenants, or selling at discounts less generous than those under the right to buy. Security of tenure and the right to buy are issues which, judging by my postbag, are of increasing concern. I cannot continue to defend a situation where certain tenants are denied the rights and privileges offered to most public sector tenants simply because their house is owned by a county rather than a district, or because it lies on one side of a local authority boundary rather than the other.
Taking county and district council tenancies as a whole, we have at present three different regimes governing security and the right to buy. District council tenants in part V housing—that is, housing provided under part V of the 1957 Act to meet general housing needs—have all the rights and protections afforded by chapters 1 and 2 of the 1980 Act. Non-part V district council tenants were brought within the scope of the right-to-buy provisions as a result of the Housing (Extension of the Right to Buy) Order made earlier this year, but subject to certain exceptions. In practice, county council tenants have at present no statutory rights or protections under the 1980 Act. These amendments will provide for the common treatment of county and district tenants.
New clause 12(1) is the basic provision that adds county councils to the list of landlords whose tenancies are governed by the security of tenure provisions of the 1980 Act. Of course, it does not follow that every county council tenancy will become secure, nor that every county

council tenant will have the right to buy. The 1980 Act provides that certain types of tenancy are excluded from security and hence from the right to buy.
As county councils were not incorporated in the original legislation. certain of their operational requirements are not fully provided for. We, therefore, need to refine the exceptions to security and the right to buy incorporated in the existing legislation. That is what the remainder of the amendments is about.
The exceptions will affect three types of tenancy. The first is police housing, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has tabled a later amendment. The Police Regulations 1979 require that a member of a police force who is not paid a rent allowance shall be provided with a house or quarters free of rent and rate. New clause 12(2) proposes that accommodation provided by police authorities in pursuance of this requirement shall be exempted from security and from the right to buy.
The second exception is for dwellings within the curtilage of buildings held for non-housing purposes. It may be important for a landlord to retain control over the occupation of dwellings within the curtilage of schools, libraries, and fire stations. We are, therefore, proposing that the right to buy should not arise in relation to such dwellings where they are let to employees in consequence of their employment. We are also proposing that there should be a new ground for possession enabling a landlord to gain possession of such a dwelling where it is required for letting to a new employee—subject to the safeguard that suitable alternative accommodation is provided. These provisions are designed to replace paragraph 3 of schedule 3, which is to be repealed. That paragraph provides protection for the landlord's interest only where the building is held for social service or educational purposes.
The third exception that we are proposing is for dwellings normally reserved for occupation under contract of employment but exceptionally let otherwise on a short-term basis. "Short term" is defined as being for less than three years. Dwellings normally reserved for occupation by a warden or caretaker may exceptionally be let on a temporary basis to another person when the warden or caretaker has alternative accommodation conveniently situated. We do not want to discourage short-term lettings. New clause 12(2) proposes that such tenancies should not be secure, provided that the tenant has been informed of his position prior to the commencement of his tenancy.
This group of amendments will remove the present anomaly. It will give appropriate county council tenants the rights and protection that are already available to district council tenants. It will provide landlords with additional protection where operational interests are at stake, and it will rationalise the legislation governing part V and non-part V tenancies under a single set of provisions.
I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.

Mr. John Fraser: (Norwood): I hope that it will not be considered out of place if I begin my speech with a protest. The Government tabled new clauses 12 and 13 on Monday of this week for debate on Wednesday. That does not give much time for long and detailed clauses and consequent amendments to be studied not only by the Opposition, but by people outside the House.
I hope the Minister will note that 48 hours' notice for important clauses such as new clauses 12 and 13, dealing with the sale of houses of pensioners, especially new clause 13, is not enough. It is not fair to the conduct of our proceedings or to the ability of people outside, particularly at this time of the year, to comment to Members of Parliament — nor, indeed, is it fair to Members of Parliament—to table substantive clauses so late in the day. I hope that the Minister will take on board what I do not intend to be a churlish comment. It simply asks for enough time to give us as members of the Opposition and other people in the House the chance to do our job.

Mr. Gow: May I respond to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) now?

Mr. Speaker: Of course.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly fair point. The Government regret that it was not possible to table the new clauses earlier. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to other Opposition Members for that.

Mr. Fraser: I accept the Minister's apology in the spirit that it was given. I hope that this will not happen again.
Mark Twain once said of one of the guests at his house party that the more the man talked of his honour the more they counted the spoons. The more the Minister for Housing and Construction talks about housing, the more we recognise that houses in public ownership will diminish in number. This new clause, in a small way, is no exception to that.
The Opposition have no objection to security of tenure being given to the tenants of county councils, with the exceptions that the Minister has now sensibly put in the Bill. As I understand them, they work in this way: if a person is employed by a county council—for example, as a school caretaker or as a police officer — on a service tenancy, where the occupation of a dwelling is a necessary consequence of the job, unless he lives within the curtilage of the building, once he has been in the job for more than three years, he has security of tenure. If the person is living within the curtilage of the building, that is a different matter. A school caretaker, for example, needs to live within the curtilage of the school. It would defeat the object of providing that accommodation if after three or four years that caretaker was able to have both security of tenure and the right to buy his home. I understand that there have to be exceptions in such circumstances.
4.30 pm
The Opposition support the proposition contained in the new clause that the tenants of county councils should have security of tenure. However, we differ from the Government about extending the right to buy to those given security of tenure. Apart from specialist employees, those who live in county council owned accommodation as tenants in a sense will be there accidentally. They will be the tenants of houses which have been bought by a local authority in advance of a school building programme or a road widening programme or in anticipation of some other exercise of the county council's functions. They will be in that accommodation only until the county council wants to use the land for the prime purpose for which it bought it. The tenants will be occupying that accommodation as council tenants simply by accident.
Although the Opposition support the extension of security of tenure, we have reservations about the right to buy. In general, the right to buy has proved popular amongst some tenants. It is not popular amongst all, but it is popular amongst those who live in the more popular dwellings. That is how it has panned out. The better housing has been sold. The less attractive housing—flats especially—remains in council stock.
Throughout the Bill the Opposition have not sought to reverse the rights granted by the 1980 Act. But we have sought to take a much broader view of housing than simply the Government's fetish about public asset stripping. Their concern is not about the provision of more accommodation or about improving the condition of accommodation. Their obsession and fixation is about getting rid of the better housing accommodation to those who wart it and often at extravagant and absurd discounts.
In housing it is not tenure which is the most important matter. It is not even the type of dwelling. The two golden principles are adequate supply and adequate choice. The object of housing policy should be that every person and every family is able to choose to rent or to buy a home of reasonable size at a price which it can afford and that the exercise of one person's right to housing is not a denial of another person's right.
The objection which comes from some areas of the country to the right to buy is not an objection to owner-occupation or a demand for any kind of restraint on the legitimate desire of many people to own their homes. It is a concern about the broad objective of housing policy to ensure that one person's exercise of a right is not the interference in the exercise of a right of another person.
The clause illustrates that the Government do not take any broad or rounded view about housing policy or about local government policy. It is concerned largely with stripping public assets and financing their present housing programme on the proceeds of those sales.
We have a major crisis in housing at the moment with 1·5 million people on the waiting lists and thousands homeless. But I warn the House that that crisis will get very much worse in two or three years. If we look at the HIP allocations published only a few weeks ago we see that virtually one half of all housing capital expenditure is being financed from the sale of council houses. Earlier today hon. Members were told in answer to a question that about 600,000 dwellings had been sold, and about 40,000 in the housing association sector. That was simply the first flush of the operation of the 1980 Act.
This Bill is about reviving a dying trend. The tendency of people to buy their homes is dying off. Those who wanted the best homes and had the ability to buy them have opted to do so, and those houses have passed into private ownership. Those purchases are now dying away. If in the year 1984–85 one half of all housing capital expenditure is coming from the receipts of sales of council houses, what happens when the sale of council houses has died away altogether? Will the Treasury provide the other £1,500 million or so for council capital expenditure on housing, or is the present catastrophically low figure of new construction to die away even further? If this policy continues, in two or three years there will be an even greater catastrophe than we have at the moment.
I come to the objectionable details of the clause. I have no quarrel with the proposal to give general security of tenure to the tenants of county councils. However, the clause also gives the right to buy in circumstances which


could be absurdly costly to local authorities. A local authority could buy land with housing on it in advance of the construction of a school or the widening of a road. If it let those premises to a tenant for more than a temporary period, the tenant would receive security of tenure. When at some future date the authority wanted to go ahead with its school building programme or its road widening programme, it would have to buy back the house from the tenant at a price at least 50 per cent. higher than the selling price to the tenant.
If a house cost £20,000 and the letting was for more than three years, it could hardly be said that it was exempted by schedule 3 of the 1980 Act, paragraph 4 of which provides:
A tenancy is not a secure tenancy if the dwelling-house is on land which has been acquired for development … and … is used by the landlord, pending development of the land, as temporary housing accommodation.
If the local authority buys land and lets the accommodation on it for three, four or five years, that can hardly be described as a temporary letting. The tenant will not only become secure but will have the right to buy. The house will pass into the hands of the tenant. If the local authority wants to acquire the house back again for the purposes of its proposed development even a month or two later, it will have to pay at least 50 per cent. more than the price at which it sold that house.
That is absurd. It is the sort of proposition illustrated by this legislation. It is wasteful and an absurd incursion on good planning by local authorities in buying land in advance and making it available for letting. That is why the Opposition oppose the new clause.
There is another way out for the county council. It is to leave the premises vacant. But, given the scale of housing need, to leave housing vacant is quite unjust and an absurd use of housing assets. We suggest that security of tenure should be given to those who occupy county council accommodation. But if the land is needed for further requirements, the way in which the 1980 Act is drafted is not wide enough to protect the county council. That being so, the right to buy should not go along with the security of tenure, which we welcome.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I support the new clause. I intervene only to seek further information from my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction about its effect.
In my constituency there are certain properties which were acquired by the then Kent county council for the purposes of the Land Settlement Act. To each property was attached a smallholding. Subsequently a number of the smallholdings were amalgamated, leaving the buildings available for ordinary housing purposes. At least one of my constituents has been living in such a house as a tenant for more than 20 years. He was a policeman when he first became the occupant, although that was not part of his terms of service. He wished to purchase his house under existing legislation, but was told by Kent county council that, although it was entitled to sell it to him, it would not do so on preferential terms. If passed, will this new clause mean that such a tenant would be entitled to buy his premises on preferential terms?

Mr. Allan Roberts: (Bootle): I rise to oppose the new clause, mainly for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the

Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). The Government would apparently prefer properties to stand empty rather than allow them to remain in the municipal sector.
The Government's paranoia about council property is adequately illustrated by the new clause. It proposes that properties acquired by county councils for road widening schemes or other purposes, and which they want to let to tenants until they are required, should come under the right-to-buy provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood said, a local authority that has purchased such a property, and does not want it to stand empty, can let it. The person living there can then exercise his right to buy and purchase the property back from the council, even though the council has just bought it for the road widening scheme. If the road widening scheme then goes ahead after a delay that is due perhaps to cuts in central Government's funding to local authorities, the local authority will have to buy back the house from the very person to whom it has just sold it. If that is economic sense, I do not represent Bootle.
I have continually campaigned against Labour, Conservative and Liberal-controlled local authorities that keep properties empty unnecessarily. The new clause is a recipe for councils to keep such properties empty and to board them up when they could be used during the interim period. It is also a recipe for a local authority to let the property on a licence, which would destroy the good part of the clause, which provides security of tenure. I urge the Minister to reconsider the issue and to rephrase the new clause so that it achieves some of his aims for providing security of tenure, and for meeting the problem of properties in county council ownership that are not at first required for their original purpose.
I regret that the new clause was tabled at such short notice. When we debate new clause 13, I shall express my view about how that has been dealt with, and about the Government's intention in tabling it so late in the day. However, I hope that the Government will reconsider this recipe for leaving properties empty. After all, the Minister attacks local authorities, and particularly Labour-controlled authorities, for leaving properties vacant.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) referred to the total housing provision. The total housing provision for next year is slightly higher, in cash terms, than for this year. I expect a new boost to be given to the policy of selling council houses—and now, with the limitations to which I referred, to the sale of county council houses—when the Bill reaches the statute book. It is the Government's intention to ensure that all those upon whom rights are conferred by Parliament will be made aware of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) described the situation of one of his constituents. I do not know the details of the case, but his county council will now be able to sell houses to his constituents, under the terms of the general consent. Under the new clause county council tenants will have the right to buy. However, I cannot be specific about the case that he mentioned, without knowing all the details.
I disagreed with the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) when he said that the Government were obsessed with the public sector. The new clause seeks to remove an anomaly whereby a tenant who, by historical accident, happens to be the tenant of a county council rather than


of a district council feels aggrieved. It is anomalous that a district council's tenant should have the right to buy while a county council's tenant does not.
The Labour party does not seem to understand that this legislation seeks to respond to the preferences of the people. The preference of the overwhelming majority of those who are tenants of district and county councils is for home ownership. The new clause offers that opportunity and removes the anomaly. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. John Fraser: The background note to the new clause has a heading that is something like "Sales of county council housing that is surplus to requirements". If that was the effect of the new clause, it would not be quite as bad as we think it is. However, paragraph 4 of schedule 3 of the 1980 Act exempts from secure tenancies only lettings of a temporary nature. Perhaps the Minister will answer the specific point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and me. Let us suppose that land is bought in advance of requirement for a road widening scheme and that the Scrooge-like attitude of the Treasury and of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport leads to a delay of about five years. If the county council sensibly lets the premises during that period, it must surely be more than a temporary letting. If the tenant buys the house, and the county council then wants to go ahead with its scheme, it will have to buy back the house a second time. Am I not right?

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman has cited an extreme case. I cannot say that such a situation would never arise, but I think that there will be very few such cases, if any.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 151.

[Division No. 115]
[4.45 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Budgen, Nick


Aitken, Jonathan
Bulmer, Esmond


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butterfill, John


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ashdown, Paddy
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, David (BM'th E)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Baldry, Anthony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beggs, Roy
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bellingham, Henry
Cockeram, Eric


Benyon, William
Colvin, Michael


Berry, Sir Anthony
Conway, Derek


Best, Keith
Coombs, Simon


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cope, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Crouch, David


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Body, Richard
Dicks, T.


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bottomley, Peter
Dover, Denshore


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Durant, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Eggar, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Emery, Sir Peter


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Eyre, Reginald


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Crthpes)
Fallon, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Favell, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Buck, Sir Antony
Finsberg, Geoffrey



Fletcher, Alexander
Lyell, Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David John.


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maclennan, Robert


Fox, Marcus
McQuarrie, Albert


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Major, John


Fry, Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Gale, Roger
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Galley, Roy
Mates, Michael


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meadowcroft, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morris, M. (N'hamptcn, 5)


Goodlad, Alastair
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gow, Ian
Murphy, Christopher


Gower, Sir Raymond
Needham, Richard


Grant, Sir Anthony
Neubert, Michael


Greenway, Harry
Newton, Tony


Gregory, Conal
Nicholson, J.


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Onslow, Cranley


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Ground, Patrick
Parris, Matthew


Grylls, Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Pawsey, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Penhaligon, David


Hanley, Jeremy
Pollock, Alexander


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Porter, Barry


Harris, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Harvey, Robert
Powley, John


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Renton, Tim


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hawksley, Warren
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hayes, J.
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hayhoe, Barney
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hayward, Robert
Rifkind, Malcolm


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Henderson, Barry
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hickmet, Richard
Roe, Mrs Marion


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hirst, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hooson, Tom
Ryder, Richard


Hordern, Peter
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idford)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shepherd, Richard (A'dridge)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shersby, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Silvester, Fred


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Sims, Roger


Jackson, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfeld)


Jessel, Toby
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Speed, Keith


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spence, John


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Spencer, D.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Key, Robert
Squire, Robin


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Knox, David
Steen, Anthony


Lamont, Norman
Stern, Michael


Lang, Ian
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Latham, Michael
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stokes, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lester, Jim
Sumberg, David


Lightbown, David
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Lilley, Peter
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)






Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Ward, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Terlezki, Stefan
Warren, Kenneth


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Watson, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thorne, Neil (IIford S)
Wheeler, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Whitney, Raymond


Thurnham, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Tracey, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Trippier, David
Wood, Timonthy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Woodcook, Michael


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waddington, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wakeham, Rt Hon John



Waldegrave, Hon William
tellers for the Ayes


Walden, George
Mr.David hunt and


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Mr. Douglas Hogg




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cunningham, Dr John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tam


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)


Barron, Kevin
Deakins, Eric


Beith, A. J.
Dewar, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Dixon, Donald


Blair, Anthony
Dobson, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Dormand, Jack


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Caborn, Richard
Eadie, Alex


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)


Clarke, Thomas
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Clay, Robert
Fatchett, Derek


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Faulds, Andrew


Cohen, Harry
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Coleman, Donald
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Fisher, Mark


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Flannery, Martin


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Corbett, Robin
Foster, Derek


Corbyn, Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Cowans, Harry
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Craigen, J. M.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Crowther, Stan
George, Bruce




Godman, Dr Norman
Nellist, David


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
O'Brien, William


Hardy, Peter
O'Neill, Martin


Harman. Ms Harriet
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Park, George


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Pavitt, Laurie


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter


Haynes, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Prescott, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Randall, Stuart


Holland. Stuart (Vauxhall)
Redmond, M.


Home Robertson, John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hoyle, Douglas
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rogers. Allan


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Rooker, J. W.


John, Brynmor
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rowlands, Ted


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sedgemore, Brian


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sheldon. Rt Hon R.


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lamond, James
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Leighton, Ronald
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; Fbury)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Litherland, Robert
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spearing, Nigel


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Straw, Jack


McKelvey, William
Thomas. Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McTaggart, Robert
Tinn, James


McWilliam, John
Torney, Tom


Madden, Max
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marek, Dr John
Wareing, Robert


Martin, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Williams,Rt Hon A.


Maxton, John
Winnick, David


Maynard, Miss Joan
Woodall, Alec


Meacher, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michie, William
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Tellers for the Noes:
Miller. Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Mr. James Hamilton and
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

New Clause 13

DWELLING-HOUSES SUITABLE FOR OCCUPATION BY PERSONS OF PENSIONABLE AGE

—(1) After section 18 of the 1980 Act there shall he inserted the following section— 18A.—(1) Where a conveyance or grant executed in pursuance of this Chapter is of a dwelling-house which—


5
(a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating 5 system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and


10
(b) was let to the tenant or his predecessor in title for occupation by a person of pensionable age (whether the tenant or predecessor or any other person), the conveyance or grant may contain a covenant limiting the freedom of the tenant (including any successor in title of his and any person deriving title under him or any such successor) to dispose of the dwelling-house in the manner specified below.


15
(2) The limitation is that, until the end of the period of twenty-one years beginning with the conveyance or grant, there will he no relevant disposal which does not fall within section 8(3A) of this Act unless in relation to that or a previous such disposal—


20
(a) the tenant (or his successor in title or the person deriving title under him or his successor) has offered to reconvey the dwelling-house or, as the case may be, surrender the lease, to the landlord for a consideration equal (subject to subsection (4) below), to the amount agreed between the parties or determined by the district valuer as being the amount which under subsection (3) below is to be taken as the value of the dwelling-house at the time the offer

is made; and



(b) the landlord has refused the offer or has failed to accept it within one month after it was made.


25
(3) The value of the dwelling-house at the time the offer is made shall be taken to be the price which, at that time, the interest of the tenant (or his successor in title) would realise if sold on the open market by a willing vendor on the assumption that any liability under the covenant required by section 8(1) of this Act would be discharged by the tenant (or his successor).


30
(4) If the landlord accepts the offer mentioned in subsection (2) above, the consideration shall be reduced by such amount (if any) as, on a relevant disposal made at the time the offer was made and not falling within subsection (3A) of section 8 of this Act, would fall to be paid under the covenant required by subsection (1) of that section; and no payment shall be required in pursuance of that covenant.


35
(5) Any disposal in breach of such a covenant as is mentioned in subsection (1) above shall be void.



(6) Where there is a relevant disposal which falls within section 8(3A)(0 or (e) of this Act such covenant as is mentioned in subsection (1) above shall cease to apply in relation to the property disposed of.


40
(7) In this section 'relevant disposal' has the same meaning as in section 8 of this Act; and for the purposes of this section the grant of an option enabling a person to call for a relevant disposal which does not fall within section 8(3A) of this Act shall be treated as such a disposal made to him and a consent to such a grant as a consent to a disposal made in pursuance of the option."


45
(2) The amendment made by subsection (1) above shall not apply where the tenant's claim to exercise the right to buy was made before the commencement date unless, at that date, the period specified in paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule I to the 1980 Act (dwelling-houses for occupation by persons of pensionable age) had not expired or there was outstanding an application for a determination under that paragraph.'—[Mr. Gow.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5 pm

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the new clause:
(a), in line 5, at end insert
'or for use by disabled persons'.
(b), in line 8, after 'age', insert
'or for use by disabled persons.
(c), in line 47, after 'paragraph', insert '3 or'.
We are also to take Government amendments Nos. 95, 106, 107, 81, 82, 114, 115, 84, 85, 86 to 88, 108, 89, 90, 91, 113, 92 and 103.

Mr. Gow: This is an important group of Government amendments. They will make significant changes in the rules governing the exclusion of elderly people's accommodation from the right to buy. One important point I must make at the outset is that they involve no change to the rules about sheltered accommodation for the elderly —groups of bungalows or flats where a warden service and other facilities are normally provided for the residents. Sheltered housing of that kind has always been excluded from the right to buy, and will remain so—although I want to say a little more about sheltered housing after I have spoken to the amendments.
What we are talking about here is non-sheltered housing for the elderly — typically the one or two-bedroom bungalow or ground floor flat with the sort of features that help to make life comfortable for elderly people, such as special heating facilities, special kitchen and bathroom fittings, absence of steps, and so on.
The present legislation on that is in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the 1980 Act — a provision which, as some hon. Members may recall, was inserted after long discussion, both here and in another place, during the passage of the 1980 Bill. Paragraph 5 provides that, where a tenant of an elderly persons' dwelling seeks to exercise the right to buy, the landlord may apply to my right hon. Friend for a determination that the dwelling is to be excluded from the right to buy. The Secretary of State must make such a determination if he is satisfied first, that

the dwelling is designed or specially adapted for persons of pensionable age; and secondly, that it is the practice of the landlord to let it only for such persons.
One might think at first sight that the intention underlying that provision is reasonably clear. It was meant to ensure that, while landlords did not have a blanket discretion to exclude from the right to buy any dwelling they considered suitable for the elderly, they did have a means of exempting housing that was genuinely designed for the elderly and normally let to such people.
Put in those terms, the matter seems relatively simple, but it has proved far from simple in practice. We have therefore been reviewing our experience with paragraph 5 since the 1980 Act reached the statute book, and it may be helpful to the House, in considering the Government's proposals, if I give some brief details.
During the past three years my Department and the Welsh Office have received just 2,470 applications from authorities in England and Wales for the exclusion of dwellings from the right to buy under paragraph 5. Of those, 526 were subsequently withdrawn; 1,685 were rejected; and 103 are still being considered. Only 156 applications have been successful. In other words, over the last three years only 156 houses in the whole of England and Wales have been excluded from the right to buy under the provisions of paragraph 5. That is 6 per cent. of applications received, and a tiny fraction of the total stock of elderly persons' dwellings.
Why is the figure so low? First, the test that must be applied under paragraph 5 to decide whether exemption from the right to buy may be granted is a stringent test. It requires evidence to be produced both as to design and as to letting practice. Few landlords have been able to satisfy both parts of that test.
Secondly, the apparently simple terms of paragraph 5 have given rise to a number of difficult legal problems. For example, what part respectively do intention and achievement play in the concept of design? Must the dwelling have been let to an elderly tenant, or can it have been let to someone not of pensionable age who had an elderly relative living with him? These and other legal points have caused real difficulty.
That is a wholly undesirable position. Frequently neither landlords nor tenants know where they stand. In some cases representations and inquiries have stretched over many months. Decisions are often not understood by one party or another because of the shades of interpretation on which they turn. The Department has the greatest difficulty in satisfying itself that it is maintaining a consistent and impartial stance in its dealings with tenants and landlords. I can assure the House that we do not operate provisions that can give rise to accusations of inconsistency without a feeling of considerable unease.
Administrative costs have been wholly disproportionate. The cost to the Department of dealing with applications under paragraph 5 is running at £150,000 per year. Costs to landlord authorities must also be substantial. I remind the House that we are talking about the exclusion of a mere 140 dwellings in England and 16 in Wales from the right to buy over a three-year period.
That in itself represents a formidable case for reforming the present paragraph 5 arrangements and replacing them by something simpler. But there is another point I feel bound to make. A striking fact that emerges from the statistics we have collected is that the vast bulk of the applications we have received in England under paragraph 5 have come from roughly one third of the councils administering the right to buy. Two thirds of authorities have submitted four or fewer applications to my right hon. Friend. Of those, about a half have not made a single application. In a number of cases the obvious explanation is that the authorities are willing sellers of elderly persons' accommodation, and see no need to apply for exemption. In such cases the existing requirements for Secretary of State approval not to sell have no relevance.
But that the landlord freely sells elderly peoples' houses is a highly improbable explanation in other cases, where we know that councils have a declared policy of being reluctant sellers. In some cases, as a result of tenants' complaints, we have had direct evidence of authorities who simply tell elderly tenants that they are not entitled to buy their homes, without making any application to the Secretary of State. In other words, paragraph 5 has been used by those authorities as a basis for unlawfully denying tenants rights that have been conferred upon them by Parliament. That is a very serious matter, and where there is direct evidence we pursue it vigorously. But I am forced to conclude that the practice of denying claims to buy by elderly tenants without using the paragraph 5 procedures is quite widespread.
In the light of those factors, we believe that a different approach is required. Paragraph 5 of the 1980 Act will be repealed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will no longer have power to exclude dwellings from the right to buy by determination. Tenants of non-sheltered accommodation for the elderly will, in future, have the right to buy if they otherwise qualify. Where

determinations have been issued in the past, that will not prevent a tenant from reapplying to buy when the Bill comes into force.
Landlords will instead be given the opportunity if they wish to impose a pre-emption covenant when selling an elderly person's dwelling. New clause 13 will give authorities that power where a dwelling satisfies a modified and simplified version of the design and letting test embodied in paragragh 5. That test is in subsections (1)(a) and (b) of the new section 18A.
Landlords will have the right to buy back on a first disposal of the dwelling within 21 years of the right to buy sale. Disposal for those purposes is defined as for discount clawback. In other respects, the provisions relating to the pre-emption covenant follow those of section 19 of the 1980 Act—the provision that permits such covenants to be imposed in national parks and other rural areas. Repurchase will be at full market value, subject to the normal rules about repayment of discount.
A number of detailed technical amendments—Nos. 81 to 92 and 106 to 115 are necessary to achieve consistency between the new section 18A and the old section 19.
I said that we are not here concerned with sheltered housing for the elderly — that is, and will remain, excluded from the right to buy—but I should mention that the provision excluding sheltered accommodation, which is in paragraph 4 of schedule 1 to the 1980 Act, has not been without its problems too. There is evidence that, partly because of its wording, some authorities have been able to make improper use of paragraph 4 to deny tenants their right to buy.
Some authorities, having realised that they have no case for a determination under paragraph 5, have simply withdrawn their applications to the Secretary of State and denied the right to buy on the strength of paragraph 4. Yet it must be obvious to every housing committee in the country that the two provisions relate to quite different types of accommodation. In other cases we have a strong suspicion that authorities have in effect played a trick on their elderly tenants. They have installed simple intercom systems in otherwise normal bungalows — and then denied the right to buy on the ground that these constitute "special facilities" within the meaning of paragraph 4.
We have also had representations from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation pointing out that paragraph 4 as it stands—even if read with clause 2 of the Bill—does not adequately cover the case where accommodation in a sheltered housing scheme is let either to the elderly or to the physically disabled; nor does it cover sheltered accommodation provided for the mentally ill or mentally handicapped.
That is a valid point. The Government will therefore table amendments in another place to meet the genuine concern expressed by RADAR, and at the same time seek to prevent the sort of abuse of paragraph 4 to which some authorities appear to have stooped.
I believe that the new approach embodied in new clause 13 will effectively deal with the problems that have arisen under paragraph 5. It will ensure that elderly tenants get their right to buy and are not denied it unlawfully. It will be quite clear now that only sheltered housing is excluded.
Secondly, the clause will remove a costly administrative burden, both on the Department and on the local authorities, which is out of all proportion to the results which have been achieved. Finally, I stress that it


will give local authorities the opportunity to reacquire elderly persons' accommodation where they consider that necessary to meet the needs of their area.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister address himself to amendments Nos. 106, 107, 81 and 82 to clause 7, which deals with arrangements for national parks since half of my constituency is covered by them? What is the intention behind clause 7 and what is the Minister's intention in the amendments?

Mr. Gow: The national parks are unaffected by the Bill; the amendments are purely technical.
I was reminding the House of the important preemption provisions. We shall give any local authority which wishes the right to buy back a house sold under the provisions in the new clause.

Mr. Heffer: As the Minister said, this is an important clause. From its length and size one could say that it is not so much a clause as a mini Bill. We take exception to such important clauses being presented to the House within two days of our being able to discuss them and without them being considered in Committee. Hon. Members have not had the opportunity to examine in detail all the aspects.
We are somewhat upset and worried about what the Minister said about sheltered accommodation. He said clearly that sheltered accommodation will not be affected. He talked about local authorities which may have transformed some old people's dwellings into a type of sheltered accommodation in the interests of that locality and the circumstances of the neighbourhood. The Minister implied that some authorities were pulling a fast one and would be dealt with by an amendment tabled in another place. Once again, the House of Commons will not have the opportunity to examine the proposal.
5.15 pm
I hope that the Minister does not become upset when I say that that underlines once again the Government's dictatorial nature. Local authorities will not be able to determine what is in the interests of local people. If they do so the Government will move against them. That is wholly in line with their policies on rate capping, reducing the rate support grant and bringing local authorities to heel. This is the beginning of the end of local democracy as it has been known for hundreds of years, and for which we have had to fight so hard. I hope that the House will take notice of what the Minister said and take it into consideration when we vote on the clause.
The Government once again are extending the right to buy. As the Minister said, under the Housing Act 1980 exemptions were allowed. Paragraph 5 of schedule 1 spells that out. The Minister was right to say that the paragraph was inserted after lengthy debate and because of opinion in another place. If the Government cannot get their way on one occasion they bring an issue forward on another hoping that both Houses will not be so vigilant. I hope that the House of Lords is vigilant and that the Government will be soundly defeated on the clause.
We were far from happy that the arrangements under paragraph 5 worked to prevent the sale of elderly persons' dwellings. Towards the end of 1982 the Association of Metropolitan Authorities conducted a survey of members and found, as the Minister said, that of 305 exemptions applied for, only 15 were granted, 235 were rejected and the rest were awaiting decision. The rejection rate was 93 per cent.
The problem for local authorities was that the Secretary of State would not grant an exemption if a dwelling had been allocated to a non-aged person at some point in the distant past and, for example, if an allocation had been made to a disabled person not of pensionable age. We hoped that there would be a tightening up on exemptions, but the Government are opening up the right to buy on all aged persons' dwellings except those in sheltered housing schemes. That is a frightening development.
Replying to questions this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), the Minister said that there was no danger that the building stock would be diminished. That is an absurd statement because the local authority stock would be diminished. Everyone who knows anything about local authority housing, especially in the urban areas, is aware that the lack of aged persons' homes is one of the real problems. There is a need for more bungalows to be built or adapted, and for more ground floor flats. To remove only one of those homes from the stock adds to the Burden, because Government policy: is ensuring that the number of buildings being built by local authorities is going down and down. It is quite wrong for the Government to say that the stock will in no way be affected.
Even though present exemption arrangements have not worked in favour of the local authorities, it has to be said that most local authority tenants have understood that their aged person's dwellings are not available to be bought. Most tenants have therefore not applied to purchase and have not pressed their case with the Secretary of State. There has been what one could call an administrative deterrent. If that deterrent is removed, as is proposed in the clause, the floodgates could be opened for applications.
The sons, daughters or grandchildren could move in. The house would be bought at a discount, but the children or grandchildren would be the real purchasers. It is inie that they could not simply take over the dwelling if the old people died, because of the 21-year rule, but the dwelling would then be bought by the local authority at the market price. Somebody, somewhere, could do well out of that. We must take that into consideration.
This is a very bad provision. We intend to oppose the clause, and we hope that, having listened to all the reasons given by myself and my hon. Friends, other hon. Members will oppose it too. We agree that this is a matter of great importance. The clause should be discussed at greater length than some of the other clauses. It involves an extension of the right to buy. It underlines the dogmatic attitude of the Government. Instead of devising policies that would solve the housing problem and ensure that within a number of years all our people would have decent homes at reasonable rents, or would be able to buy at reasonable prices, the Government have adopted the dogmatic attitude which is evident in their approach to the whole concept of the right to buy.
I hope that a number of Government Members will not hesitate to join us in the Lobby. I may be speaking to deaf ears, but it would be nice if, now and again, some Conservative Members could see the realities of such legislation and would assist the Opposition in trying to rectify the wrongs done by the Government.

Mr. W. Benyon: As the Minister will appreciate, this is a new clause of immense complexity,


but I hope that, taking into account the rights of preemption, the 21-year period and so on, he will be able to answer my question. Could we ever find young people living in accommodation expressly built for the elderly? I understand that, if certain circumstances arose, this would happen. My hon. Friend will remember that when this was discussed in another place, the point that caused the greatest anxiety was that in certain circumstances we would lose accommodation designed and built expressly for the elderly. That might not matter much in the large conurbations—although it would matter to some extent —but it would be intensely relevant in small rural areas where the number of such dwellings is very small.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Until I read new clause 13 I had no intention of attempting to speak in this debate. Having read that clause, I can only believe that the Government have flipped their lid. What they are doing will throw open the floodgates. An answer that I received in Question Time today has strengthened my belief that even the Minister for Housing and Construction is not quite certain what the consequences of the new clause will be. He referred me to the pre-emption point, but my case was that, even if the local authorities did not wish to buy them back, these properties would still appear on the open market at the market value. The clause will open the floodgates. I am bearing in mind the Minister's earlier statement that previously there had been problems and hold-ups in connection with the sale of bungalows.
Most of the people in my area who live in accommodation for the aged are of a great age. They are in their 80s or older. Under the clause, younger members of the family — daughters, sons or granddaughters —could purchase old people's dwellings on behalf of their parents or grandparents. If, in the course of time, the old people die, within a short period the younger members of the family will be in possession of the dwelling.
I have carried out a little exercise in my constituency, where there are about 3,000 such dwellings. I believe that there may well be a great many applications from younger people to buy on behalf of the aged. If the figure is 50 per cent., I reckon that the local authority will lose £30 million of its assets, and will be giving away £18 million to younger people who have been able to manipulate the legislation in the way that I have just described. If the young people hold on to the dwelling for five years they will get a rake-off of £12,000, or the difference between market value and 40 per cent. of the market value, and so it would go on down the scale.
It is possible that within a matter of months a person who bought a house for his or her parents or grandparents could cash in to the tune of £2,500 in the event of the older person's death. We shall finish up with old people's accommodation, which local authorities have strived for many years to provide, being taken out of the local authority pool. There might be cases of young people living in such accommodation. In my area we have some two-bedroom accommodation which would be quite suitable for young or middle-aged couples. We shall find ourselves short of bungalows for aged people who remain on the waiting list for accommodation.
5.30 pm
If a younger member of a family wants to sell back to the local authority a property that he has bought the local authority will then be obliged to sell it to an old person who has completed the qualifying years in a council house and, again, younger members of that person's family might benefit from the 60 per cent. discount. That is barmy. I do not know how much thought has been put into new clause 13. I do not believe that the Minister, or whoever is responsible for it, has considered the consequences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, I hope that we shall be able to encourage the Government to withdraw it.

Mr. John Butterfill: In the light of the Minister's response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon), I should like to know whether, under existing law, premises that are constructed principally for elderly people can be inherited by young relatives. They can do so as successor tenants, so surely the point that we should be asking is whether they should do so as tenants or as owner-occupiers. Is not what is proposed an improvement in that we shall now be certain to regain possession under the right to repurchase?

Mr. William O'Brien: I oppose new clause 13. In Committee, I expressed anxiety about its effects on communities in which there is a shortage of accommodation for the elderly. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) foresaw new clause 13 having a dramatic effect on accommodation for the elderly in his constituency. I can say with hand on heart that there is a shortage of such accommodation in all parts of my constituency. Moreover, provisions such as those in new clause 13 will not improve matters. Indeed, I can envisage a deterioration in the amount of accommodation for elderly people. The elderly tend to want rented accommodation. If we remove from the rented sector the accommodation that is suitable for aged people, as is proposed. the shortage will be even worse.
The Government are reducing the allocation under the housing investment programme this year. When the Minister moved new clause 12 he assured the House that there would be a slight increase in the Government's contribution to housing investment in the coming year. I have a document which has been supplied by the Department. It says that the gross provision for 1983–84 will be slightly bigger—about £70,000 more—but that the amount available for distribution is reduced because the Government are providing for locally applied capital receipts. Nevertheless, the Government are providing less money in 1983–84 than in 1982–83. In view of the Minister's earlier reply, I hope that he will explain his suggestion that more money will be available under the HIP allocation for next year.
If we are to reduce the quantity of accommodation that is available to the elderly and there is to be a reduction in the amount of money that is available to replace such accommodation, there will be a tremendous shortfall in accommodation for the elderly throughout the country. If the Minister assures us that more allocation will be available, I should like him to explain the meaning behind the circular.
There has been another reduction in allocation to the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Requests made by local


authorities there should be re-examined. The Minister said that sheltered accommodation will be exempt from the right-to-buy provision. There are bungalows that have been purpose-built to accommodate the elderly. How will it be possible to discriminate between one lot of purpose-built accommodation and another, which will be available for purchase? The Government are being hypocritical and they should rethink new clause 13 because of the effect that it will have on communities and the waiting list for aged people's accommodation. Every week I and local councillors receive representations about the effect of the shortage of aged people's accommodation.

Sir Paul Hawkins: I do not feel able to support or oppose new clause 13 because I do not understand it. It is a jungle. Unfortunately, that is what happens in these complicated matters when drafting must be done.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon), I represent a rural constituency that puts tremendous demands on special accommodation for old people. Many of our local councils have spent many years trying to provide such accommodation. They believe that, as a result of new clause 13, we shall lose some—even if only a little — of the special accommodation for elderly people. That is the argument to which I should like the Minister to reply. If what I have said is true, our councils will be discouraged from building more special accommodation.
Norfolk probably has one of the oldest populations in the country. Many people from north London, Essex and elsewhere have retired there because building land used to be considerably cheaper there than anywhere else. There has been much building of special accommodation for elderly people.
I do not fully understand the 21-year consideration. Nevertheless, 65 plus 21 is only 86 and that is not old for many people in Norfolk. Indeed, if hon. Members want to live for a long time they should live on the north Norfolk coast. Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain in simple language whether new clause 13 will mean that we lose accommodation for elderly people? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I want to be assured by the Minister, not by the Opposition. We all understand things perfectly when we are in opposition.
I do not understand the clause and I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear. I shall not feel inclined to vote for it if it means that we are to lose accommodation for the elderly.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I intervene briefly to direct attention yet again to Government amendments Nos. 106, 107, 81 and 82. I gave the Minister a little notice of my previous intervention seeking to elicit from him the extent to which arrangements in the national parks will be changed. The tenor of his reply was that there would be no change. I am informed by the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, however, that the pre-emptive rights arrangements under the 1980 Act will be tightened up. I hope that the Minister will clarify that.
I have been greatly concerned about the implications of section 17 of the 1980 Act and its effect on housing arrangements in the national parks. The Minister will see from the Official Report of the proceedings on the 1980 legislation that I intervened periodically to express my dismay at the arrangements being made and suggested that

the Government did not understand the pressures on public housing in the national parks. The result was some minor amendments to the arrangements for elderly persons' accommodations throughout the country. The present Bill will dismantle some of those arrangements.
My objection to section 17 of the 1980 Act was not based on dogma. I have supported the right to buy in principle and I openly advocate it in my constituency. Today I restate my reservations about the arrangements in the national parks. I believe that the Government have a duty periodically to review those arrangements. At present, council tenants have to meet certain conditions. They must have worked or lived in the national park for at least three years. Despite those conditions, however, some of the housing stock has been lost and there is great concern about that.
In relation to the conditions laid down by section 17 of the 1980 Act, it is worth drawing attention to parallel provisions in planning law under section 52. A press statement from the Department last week, however, suggested that those arrangements were to be terminated. Given the importance attached to those arrangements by the Lake District planning board as the only means of restricting the development and growth of second home ownership in the national park, it is incumbent on the Government to introduce or to help us to identify a further mechanism for restricting that growth. Perhaps the Minister will devote a few words to that aspect of legislation as it causes great concern to the Lake District planning board which finds itself empty-handed and unable to deal with a growing problem.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I join the chorus of hon. Members seeking to persuade the Minister to change his mind. The new clause represents a change in the position adopted by the Government in 1980. It thus requires persuasive arguments to convince those who listen to logic, given that in a comprehensive review only three years ago, in which this matter was no doubt considered, the Government did not see fit to introduce such a proposal.
The Minister must give us information of the kind that we sought in the Standing Committee about property built or adapted for the disabled. At any given time, there is a substantial demand for such accommodation. As Conservative Members have made clear, the demand in rural constituencies is no less than that in urban areas and the proportion of properties built for a specific use is often higher. The Minister must persuade the House that demand does not exceed supply. Given the Government cuts in funding for local authority housing—there are greater cuts in that area of local authority finance than in any other—the only new building that many authorities can afford to undertake is specially designed for the disabled or the elderly. That is certainly more or less all that an authority such as mine will be able to achieve in the next year or so.
The Minister proposes to get rid of a scheme which I accept may have caused a disproportionate amount of work for the Department, but it will be replaced by a scheme which will effectively remove from the public housing stock property specially built or adapted for people of pensionable age. The arguments adduced by the Minister do not support his case, for the following reasons. Clearly, few old people will apply to buy property. If they


could afford to do so, they would have done so earlier in their lives when they were earning. People do not suddenly fall upon gold mines at the age of 70. Indeed, if they have any money they are usually trying to give it away. The likelihood of a large number of such applications to the Department is therefore extremely small. When the Minister argues that some authorities did not apply at all, he begs the question of how well publicised the provisions were. We have not been told the results of any investigation.
Above all, the Minister gave no figures for the size of rural and urban authorities' waiting lists for property which exists or is known to be required for people of pensionable age. Like many other Members representing urban areas, I am approached weekly by constituents who wish to retire to rural areas on the south coast, in Norfolk or wherever. The housing authorities in those areas regularly write back to me saying that they do not have enough property for their own people with specific needs, let alone for those nominated under a mobility scheme by another authority.
The Liberal party is also concerned about the change in wording of the definition section. In paragraph 5 of schedule 1 there has been a change in the wording of the definition which allows specific categories to be exempted if a notice is served. The Minister gave no explanation or justification for that change. He did not say whether the categories would be larger or smaller as a result and whether they would involve tens, hundreds or thousands.
We are dealing with the right to buy a small number of extremely valuable local authority properties which are especially useful and convenient for old people without the local authority being able to recoup the funds needed to replace such properties. The local authority will lose out because of inflation and the relative increase in property values in the time between the first build and the build that replaced it. Despite the qualification of the discount proposed in the clause, no matter which party runs the local authority, it will be a considerable net loser in funding such property. The elderly population is growing, as is the demand for such property.
It is not good enough for the Minister to come to the House without an argument to support his case for a clause which we saw for the first time two days ago, and which affects hundreds of thousands of people. We await the Government's reconsideration so that they can persuade hon. Members on both sides of the House that the case has some merit, because we see no merit in it now.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Although I support the drift of the argument of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), one of his remarks was quite wrong. The Government have not changed their position since 1980. The proposal to force the sale of elderly people's dwellings and bungalows was included in the 1980 Bill, was debated at length in Committee and on the Floor of the House, was opposed by the Opposition and some Conservative Members — especially those representing rural areas—and was defeated in the other place when the House of Lords voted five times in one night against the Bill. The next day the roof fell in, and it is still being fixed. The shock was too much and the Government should not repeat the exercise.
The Government did not publish the clause in the Bill, or introduce it at the beginning of our deliberations in Committee. They introduced it at the last minute. They hope that those members of the Conservative party who organised the campaign against the Bill in the other place in 1980 will not have time to do so again and will not realise what is happening.
Hon. Members who asked in 1980 whether the clause would deplete the stock of elderly people's dwellings received answers similar to those that we heard today. Everyone knew what it would mean, which was why its inclusion in the Bill was defeated. But now the Government are pulling a flanker.
By introducing the clause, the Government are attacking the most needy in the community. Elderly people's bungalows to let are like gold. The elderly queue up at advice bureaus and local housing departments to ask for transfers from three or four-bedroom accommodation, which they under-occupy, to such bungalows. By selling the dwellings, the Government are penalising the elderly who want access to such accommodation, and are making sure that the under-occupied three or four-bedroom houses are not released and let to families on waiting lists.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends said, the people who will purchase the dwellings will not be the elderly residents, but the younger members of their families. The younger people will not need to buy the dwelling from the elderly resident or inherit it when he dies because under the 1980 Act up to three members of the tenant's family can join him to purchase it. The 1980 Act defined a family for the purpose of the legislation. It stated:
A person is a member of another's family within the meaning of this Chapter if he is his spouse, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece; treating—

(a) any relationship by marriage as a relationship by blood, any relationship of the half blood as a relationship of the whole blood and the stepchild of any person as his child; and
(b) an illegitimate person as the legitimate child of his mother and reputed father;

or if they live together as husband and wife.
All that has been missed out are the budgie and the goldfish. We should send that list to the Home Secretary and have it enshrined in the immigration legislation.
The provision is economic madness, because all those elderly people will have lived in council accommodation for a long time and will be entitled to 60 per cent. discounts. It would cost less to provide rent-free occupation of council dwellings to all elderly and retired people for the rest of their lives, and it would keep the accommodation within the local authority's stock. The Labour party should adopt the latter idea as its policy, because it would be cheaper than the present system of paying discounts and administering them. Owner-occupiers enjoy the benefit of income tax relief on their mortgages, and with this idea they could also enjoy in their old age mortgage-free occupation of their subsidised or formerly subsidised owner-occupied dwellings. It would be much cheaper than the present proposal, which is a direct attack on the needy elderly who wish to rent such accommodation when it becomes available for reletting.
The clause is typical of the Government's mean-mindedness and their doctrinaire attitude to the public rented sector. It comes on top of the legislation to force local authorities to sell dwellings specially adapted for the disabled. Even those who are in favour, in principle, of the right to buy and the enforced sale of council houses will


oppose this mean act of forcing the sale of elderly people's dwellings and of accommodation adapted for the disabled. I hope that the whole House will tell the Government that this is not on. If the House does not do it tonight, I am confident that the other place will respond in the way that it did previously, and send the Government packing.

Mr. Gow: It is important to understand that when the Government conferred the right to buy in the 1980 Act a special factor applied to houses and flats that were modified for the elderly. We always recognised that, and we incorporated it in this Bill. The proposed changes are relatively minor. I have already mentioned the figures of applications made for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's determination. There are about 250,000 non-sheltered dwellings for the elderly in the public sector ownership in England and Wales, but the number of applications has been low. Since 1980, there have been 2,470 applications; 526 were withdrawn, and in 1,448 cases my right hon. Friend was unable to exclude the dwelling from the right to buy.

Mr. Heffer: That is the whole point. The spirit of the previous legislation was not observed by the Government. There have been few applictions because the Secretary of State deliberately set his face against exemptions.

Mr. Gow: I draw the opposite conclusion. The Government recognise that there is a special problem, which is why they included the special pre-emption provisions in the Bill.
6 pm
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon), it would be possible, after the 21-year period has expired, for a property with minor adaptations for the elderly to be bought by someone who was not an elderly person.
I can tell the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) that total housing provision for next year will be £3,274 million, compared with £3,244 million this year. Therefore, in cash terms, there will be slightly more.

Mr. John Fraser: To be fair, will the Minister admit that that is because he has taken back 60 per cent. of the proceeds of council house sales instead of 50 per cent?

Mr. Gow: I was asked about the provision for housing and I gave the House the correct figures. I stand by them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) said that he had difficulty in understanding our proposals. I have explained that the existing arrangements have been difficult and costly to administer and have not worked well. We propose to simplify them by providing local authorities that are selling a council house or flat that has been specially adapted for the elderly with the option to impose a special pre-emption clause for 21 years.

Mr. Benyon: Surely the pre-emption applies during the 21-year perod only if the property is offered for sale. It does not apply to transfers and a person could, therefore, leave his house to whoever he wished.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is correct. The pre-emption clause apples only on a disposal.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who courteously told me that he had to leave to attend another meeting, asked about the Government's amendment to the provisions affecting national parks. The

House's intention in the 1980 Act was that the pre-emption provisions in respect of national parks should affect only the first disposal. There has been some doubt about whether the Act is clear, and the purpose of the amendment is to confirm that the pre-emption provisions apply only to the first disposal.
I understand the strength of feeling expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government have considered carefully what we ought to do and we have borne in mind that elderly people also have rights. We have concluded that it is right to bring forward these proposals.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 165.

[Division No. 116]
[6.50 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Denshore


Alexander, Richard
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Amess, David
Dunn, Robert


Ancram, Michael
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Tom
Dykes, Hugh


Ashby, David
Edwards, Rt Hon N. ('broke)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Eggar, Tim


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Eyre, Reginald


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Anthony
Favell, Anthony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Beggs, Roy
Fletcher, Alexander


Bellingham, Henry
Fookes, Miss Janet


Berry, Sir Anthony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Best, Keith
Forth, Eric


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fox, Marcus


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Body, Richard
Freeman, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Galley, Roy


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bright, Graham
Gow, Ian


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bruinvels, Peter Grant,
Sir Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Greenway, Harry


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gregory, Conal


Buck, Sir Antony
Griffiths, E. (8'y St Edm'ds)


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsn'th N)


Bulmer, Esmond
Ground, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
Gummer, John Selwyr


Butler, Hon Adam
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hanley, Jeremy


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Harris, David


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Harvey, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hawksley, Warren


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayes, J.


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hayhoe, Barney


Cockeram, Eric
Hayward, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Conway, Derek
Heddle, John


Coombs, Simon
Henderson, Barry


Cope, John
Hickmet, Richard


Couchman, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Critchley, Julian
Hirst, Michael


Crouch, David
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'thrrit)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Dicks, T.
Holt, Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
Hooson, Tom






Hordern, Peter
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Ryder, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jessel, Toby
Shersby, Michael


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sims, Roger


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Speed, Keith


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Spencer, D.


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lamont, Norman
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Squire, Robin


Lawrence, Ivan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lee, John (Pendle)
Steen, Anthony


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stern, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lester, Jim
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Lyell, Nicholas
Stokes, John


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stradling Thomas, J.


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sumberg, David


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Maclean, David John.
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Macmillan. Rt Hon M.
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McQuarrie, Albert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maginnis, Ken
Terlezki, Stefan


Malins, Humfrey
Thomas, At Hon Peter


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thorne, Neil (IIford S)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thornton, Malcolm


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Thurnham, Peter


Moynihan, Hon C.
Tracey, Richard


Murphy, Christopher
Trippier, David


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Needham, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Neubert, Michael
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Newton, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Normanton, Tom
Waddington, David


Onslow, Cranley
Waldegrave, Hon William


Oppenheim, Philip
Walden, George


Page, John (Harrow W)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Parris, Matthew
Waller, Gary


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Ward, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Pollock, Alexander
Watson, John


Porter, Barry
Watts, John


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Powley, John
Wheeler, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Whitfield, John


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Whitney, Raymond


Raffan, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodcock, Michael


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rifkind, Malcolm



Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. John Major.


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Atkinson, N.(Tottenham)


Alton, David
Barnett, Guy


Anderson, Donald
Barron, Kevin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Beith, A. J.


Ashdown, Paddy
Bell, Stuart


Ashton,Joe
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)





Benyon, William
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Bidwell, Sydney
Kirkwood, Archibald


Blair, Anthony
Lamond, James


Boyes, Roland
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Leighton. Ronald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bruce, Malcolm
Litherland, Robert


Caborn, Richard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Loyden, Edward


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clarke, Thomas
McKelvey, William


Clay, Robert
McNamara, Kevin


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McTaggart, Robert


Cohen, Harry
McWilliam, John


Coleman, Donald
Madden, Max


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Martin, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Corbett, Robin
Maxton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cowans, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Craigen, J. M.
Michie, William


Crowther, Stan
Mikardo, Ian


Cunningham, Dr John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Nellist, David


Deakins, Eric
O'Brien, William


Dewar, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dixon, Donald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dobson, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dormand, Jack
Park, George


Douglas, Dick
Pavitt, Laurie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pike, Peter


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Eadie, Alex
Prescott. John


Eastham, Ken
Radice, Giles


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)
Randall, Stuart


Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)
Redmond, M.


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Fatchett, Derek
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Faulds, Andrew
Robertson, George


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Rogers, Allan


Fisher, Mark
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Flannery, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Sedgemore, Brian


Foster, Derek
Sheerman, Barry


Foulkes, George
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


George, Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Godman, Dr Norman
Skinner, Dennis


Gould, Bryan
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hardy, Peter
Soley, Clive


Harman, Ms Harriet
Spearing, Nigel


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Strang, Gavin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Straw, Jack


Haynes, Frank
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Heffer, Eric S.
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Tinn, James


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Torney, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hoyle, Douglas
Wareing, Robert


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Winnick, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Woodall, Alec


John, Brynmor
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Johnston, Russell



Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Mr. James Hamilton and


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

ACCESS TO FILES

'At the request of any person who is a secure tenant, the landlord shall permit him access at all reasonable times and without charge to any file kept in connection with his tenancy or repair of his dwelling house.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is wonderfully simple compared with new clause 13 which, it was alleged, was difficult to understand. It would give secure tenants the right to see, at reasonable times, the files kept by their landlord authorities in connection with their tenancies or properties. I hope that it will find support from all sides of the House.
When a similar discussion took place in Committee, the Minister indicated that in principle he and, therefore, the Government supported it. Indeed, it would be inconsistent if the Government were opposed to giving tenants access to information, as on four occasions, both in the 1980 Act and the Bill, they have given tenants the right to have more information. When an amendment in similar terms was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), it received support in principle from everyone as well as support in practice from both Opposition parties that were represented.
6.15 pm
The only reason given by the Minister for not accepting that amendment was that it was too difficult to introduce quickly before sufficient consultations had been carried out and that the matter would probably be best dealt with by guidelines.
It is a matter of principle to the Liberal party and, I believe, to everyone with experience of local government that tenants particularly need information about their homes and tenancies so that, as far as possible, they have the same sort of rights as private sector tenants. It is a matter of principle that a tenant should know what records are kept on his property — for example, its history, structure, state of repair and decoration, fundamental modernisation, rehabilitation, prospects in terms of development programming and so on.
Because of that, I hope that all hon. Members will accept that guidelines will not achieve those objectives. It is often a cry from Conservative Benches that the right to buy, which is not a guideline but an entitlement, is not adhered to by local authorities in the way that they would like. Conservative Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that guidelines will cause the most secretive authorities to reveal the files kept on tenants if such authorities are not even willing to adhere to the more stringent requirements imposed by the right to buy. Therefore, we do not believe that guidelines will be sufficient, nor will an undertaking that the matter will eventually be reconsidered and again brought before the House. We therefore ask the Government and Conservative Members to support the new clause now.
The importance of that is self-evident. So far, four specific provisions give tenants rights to have information held about them—three in the 1980 Act and one in clause 25. The clause proposes that tenants should be

entitled to details of heating costs inflicted on them when they are part of a communal heating system. That is a good idea, and in broad terms we support it.
Sections 41, 43 and 44 of the 1980 Act go down the road of information and consultation. Section 41 requires authorities to provide information about the terms of the tenancy and the provisions of the 1980 Act. Section 43 requires that consultation should take place on proposals affecting the property, but sadly it gives no further rights. Section 44 allows tenants to look at information supplied by them to a local authority when they apply for allocation elsewhere, but it does riot allow them access to information supplied and put on file by the authority.
Three short and simple examples show why the new clause is of fundamental importance to tenants everywhere.
I went to a tenants' meeting in an estate called the Osprey estate in Lower Road. Rotherhithe, a fortnight ago. It is an estate, built by the GLC about 20 years ago, on the edge of a main road. About two years ago, major structural work was done with the result that angle irons were imposed to stop cracks developing and to shore up the sides of a relatively modern block of flats. The property was later handed over to Southwark council It is clear that, because of the heavy traffic with many large lorries on the roads, there has been much structural disturbance of the property. The tenants have been unable to see the reports about the structural condition of their homes. That is unacceptable. They should know their circumstances, and whether those homes are likely to have a life of five, 10 15 or whatever years.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there are tenants who have purchased their council houses on a local authority mortgage and then tried to change it to a building society mortgage, only to discover that the building society has refused the mortgage because of structural faults in the property that would have been known to the tenant at the time of purchase had he had access to the files as the hon. Member describes.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right, and he will be aware that I tried to persuade the Government to accept that and do something about it in Committee. Sadly, they did nothing. It is of fundamental importance that the history of a property into which a tenant moves should be known to him or her so that they can have the information to deal with the authority, or the property, as they need to.
My second example is one that I gave the Committee. There are tenants who are applicants for allocation elsewhere because they need a larger or smaller property or one in a different position. Often, changes in their status —the priority that they have for allocations—are made without them being told. They need to have a right to reply to those charges, and need to know the reason for the change, which affects something of fundamental importance to them—where they should live and the size of property in which they live.
My third example is when individual tenants have regular and recurring problems with the property in which they live. For example, they may be told that a problem is caused by condensation, but it may eventually be accepted that it is dampness. However, they do not know, when the work is done once, twice or three times, why the problem is not cured. If they could see the professional report on the property, it might be an incentive for the


authority to put a better case for more funds or to do the work to correct the problem. Nobody would be better at making sure that the landlords did their job properly than the tenants concerned. Theirs is the greatest interest and they should be given the tools to make all housing authorities do their job to the best of their ability.
Next year, moves will be made to have a Bill passed on freedom of information in local government. It would be a good start to Christmas and a good example of the progress that will be made towards greater freedom of information next year if the new clause were to be accepted. Millions of tenants would rejoice that they were at last being given a power over their own lives, which, so often and so sadly, they do not now have.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on tabling his new clause, which is similar to an amendment that I tabled in Committee, and thank him for accepting that the original amendment was tabled by the official Opposition in Committee, where the hon. Gentleman supported it. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government claimed to accept the principle behind the new clause, but gave spurious reasons for not accepting that it stand part of the Bill. I hope that the Minister has been able to reconsider the Government's position since then.
This important new clause is about open government, a principle already conceded by the House of Commons and the Government. In the data protection legislation that will come next year, access to the information on computerised tenancy and repair files will be made available. If the new clause or something similar to it is not included in this legislation, we shall have the anachronism of a local authority that has computerised files having, in law, to give the tenant access to the files and the information, and another local authority that has not computerised being able to deny tenants access to the files and information. That might even encourage some reactionary councils or chairpeople of housing departments to shy away from computerisation, which is now being developed in a way that is beneficial for both repair and letting purposes in local authorities. It would be sad if that were to happen.
There are good reasons why the principle of open government should be enshrined in this legislation. Much injustice is often done to individual applicants for transfers and council tenancies by ill-informed information that has been put on files and which often has no substance in reality, such as gossip from neighbours and letters sent to the housing authority. This is kept on people's files, referred to and used in an arbitary manner, sometimes, by the worst type of clerical staff and local authority officers.
This new clause would enable tenants and would-be applicants for council accommodation to have access to their files as of right. There is no real reason why it should not be passed or why the Government should not accept the principle of open government and give these rights to tenants. The Government often quote the tenants' charter if we criticise their housing record. The new clause, if passed, would be a demonstration of how much they support tenants' rights.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will recall discussing this

matter in Committee not so long ago. I said then that, as a matter of principle, I was in favour of applicants having access to information along the lines that are proposed. I said that I should have a look at the possibility of giving guidance to landlords of secure tenants along the lines of the DHSS system, recently set out in a circular. I was pressed in Committee, and I am being pressed again, for legislation rather than guidelines. I hope the House will accept that this is a complex matter that raises a number of important issues, and that we need more time for examination and consultation on such a significant change.
My inclination then, as it is now, is that it is right not to pursue the legislation but to follow the DHSS and issue guidelines. Before the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey takes everybody into the Division Lobbies, I shall point out that his new clause is a statutory right with no exceptions. I can think of a number of cases where it would not be in the best interests of local authorities or tenants to have no exceptions. For example, a grown-up child living with his parents may discover that his parents had a criminal record or some mental disorder, a fact that would be on the files. There are good reasons why that information should not be made available to the tenant.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister accept that there are not nearly as many instances of confidential material on housing files as there are on the DHSS and social services files on which guidelines have been issued? The Minister could deal with this by saying that the Government would introduce, in the other place, a clause with the exceptions that the Minister thinks necessary.

Sir George Young: I have given but one example, and there may be others. To get it right, we need to talk to local authorities which would have to operate this, to get their views and advice on the best way to proceed. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) made it clear that information on would-be tenants would also be available so that all the decisions that a local authority took into account would be on the file, and there could be some social services information in the file where there was social services support for that tenant. We must consider carefully what safeguards against disclosure of information there should be to protect landlords, tenants and third parties.
I regret that I cannot undertake to introduce an amendment at a later stage to give secure tenants a statutory right of access to files. My mind is not closed on introducing legislation but I am still inclined to the view that it will be best to issue guidelines or circulars. I hope that the House will accept that that is a step forward and that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will agree to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I accept that the Minister has taken a small step forward. However, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel that we have raised a matter of principle consistent with the principle of open government which the Government have proclaimed when dealing with housing legislation. With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 254.

[Division No. 117]
[6.30 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Johnston, Russell


Anderson, Donald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kennedy, Charles


Ashdown, Paddy
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Ashton, Joe
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Kirkwood, Archibald


Barnett, Guy
Lamond, James


Barron, Kevin
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Leighton, Ronald


Bidwell, Sydney
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boyes Roland
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, Gordon (DTmline E)
Litherland, Robert


Brown, Hugh D (Pro van)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u- yne E)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Loyden, Edward


Bruce, Malcolm
McCartney, Hugh


Caborn, Richard
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McKelvey, William


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNamara, Kevin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McTaggart, Robert


Clarke, Thomas
Madden, Max


Clay, Robert
Marek, Dr John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Martin, Michael


Cohen, Harry
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Coleman, Donald
Maxton, John


 Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Meacher, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Michie, William


Corbett, Robin
Mikardo, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Craigen, J. M.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Crowther, Stan
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cunningham, Dr John
Nellist, David


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
O'Brien, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Deakins, Eric
Park, George


Dewar, Donald
Pavitt, Laurie


Dixon, Donald
Penhaligon, David


Dobson, Frank
Pike, Peter


Dormand, Jack
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Douglas, Dick
Prescott, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Radice, Giles


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Randall, Stuart


Eadie, Alex
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Eastham, Ken
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)
Robertson, George


Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)
Rogers, Allan


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Fatchett, Derek
Sedgemore, Brian


Faulds, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fisher, Mark
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Flannery, Martin
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'buty)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


George, Bruce
Soley, Clive


Godman, Dr Norman
Spearing, Nigel


Gould, Bryan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, James (M well N)
Straw, Jack


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hardy, Peter
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Tinn, James


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Haynes, Frank
Wareing, Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
Wigley, Dafydd


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Winnick, David


Home Robertson, John
Woodall, Alec


Hoyle, Douglas
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. A. J. Beith and


John, Brynmor
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft





NOES


Adley, Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate!)


Aitken, Jonathan
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Alexander, Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan


Amess, David
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Ancram, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair


Arnold, Tom
Gow, Ian


Ashby, David
Gower, Sir Raymond


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Grant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Greenway, Harry


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gregory, Conal


Baldry, Anthony
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'cfs)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsin'tli N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Ground, Patrick


Beggs, Roy
Grylls, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Gummer, John Selwyn


Benyon, William
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Best, Keith
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hanley, Jeremy


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Body, Richard
Harris, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Harvey, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Bottomley, Peter
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayes, J.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hayhoe, Barney


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayward, Robert


Bright, Graham
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Heddle, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Henderson, Barry


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hickmet, Richard


Buck, Sir Antony
Hirst, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bulmer, Esmond
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Burt, Alistair
Holt, Richard


Butler, Hon Adam
Hooson, Tom


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-.A)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idford)


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbou-ne)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunter, Andrew


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cockeram, Eric
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Conway, Derek
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, John
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Corrie, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Critchley, Julian
Key, Robert


Crouch, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Dicks, T.
Lamont, Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lang, Ian


Dover, Denshore
Lawler, Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawrence, Ivan


Dunn, Robert
Lee, John (Pendle)


Durant, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dykes, Hugh
Lightbown, David


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lilley, Peter


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Eyre, Reginald
Lyell, Nicholas


Fallon, Michael
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Favell, Anthony
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maclean, David John.


Fletcher, Alexander
McQuarrie, Albert


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maginnis, Ken


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Eric Marshall,
Michael (Arundel)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Mates, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Gale, Roger
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Galley, Roy
Moynihan, Hon C






Murphy, Christopher
Stern, Michael


Needham, Richard
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Neubert, Michael
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Normanton, Tom
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Page, John (Harrow W)
Stokes, John


Parris, Matthew
Sumberg, David


Patten, John (Oxford)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Pawsey, James
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Pollock, Alexander
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Porter, Barry
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Terlezki, Stefan


Powley, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Raffan, Keith
Thornton, Malcolm


Renton, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tracey, Richard


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rifkind, Malcolm
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Viggers, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waddington, David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walden, George


Ryder, Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Waller, Gary


Sayeed, Jonathan
Ward, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Warren, Kenneth


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shersby, Michael
Wheeler, John


Sims, Roger
Whitfield, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitney, Raymond


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wolfson, Mark


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Speed, Keith
Woodcock, Michael


Spencer, D.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Squire, Robin
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Tristan Garell-Jones and


Steen, Anthony
Mr. John Major.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

HOUSING TRIBUNALS

'(1) There shall be established for the area of every local authority (or if the Secretary prescribes a group of such authorities) a body to be known as the Local Housing Tribunal (in this Act called The Tribunal) whose functions shall be to adjudicate upon and to enforce the rights of secure tenants of dwellinghouses held by landlords of secure tenants.
(2) The Tribunal shall, when making an adjudication, be composed of three members of whom at least one shall be representative of the interests of secure tenants and the proceedings of the Tribunal shall be as informal as is in keeping with the just despatch of its business.
(3) The Tribunal shall have a registrar and the Tribunal shall have all the rights and powers of a magistrates' court to adjudicate and its registrar shall have all the powers of a local authority in relation to the securing of repairs and the abatement of statutory nuisances (and which would otherwise be exercisable by a local authority if the secure tenant's land landlord were not a local authority itself) as are contained in the Housing Act 1957 in sections 9 to 15 thereof (as amended by section 149 of the Housing Act 1980) and the Public Health Act 1936.
(4) The Tribunal shall have such other jurisdiction and powers in relation to the rights of secure tenants as may be conferred upon it.
(5) The Secretary of State shall by Statutory Instrument make provision for the composition and conduct of the Tribunals for the purposes set out in this section.

(6) The rights of secure tenants for the purposes of this section shall include all rights at common law and by statute which touch upon a secure tenant's right to live in a dwelling in good repair and free from nuisance or discomfort and include (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing) section 99 of the Public Health Act 1936, section 32 of the Housing Act 1961, section 125 of the Housing Act 1974, section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 and section 6 of the Housing Act 1957.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendments:
No. 19, in clause 24, page 24, line 44, after 'county court', insert 'or Housing Tribunal'.
No. 28, in clause 25, page 26, line 23, at end insert 'or Housing Tribunal'.

Mr. Fraser: There are two premises behind the new clause. The first is that there is a massive backlog of repairs to council houses. I gave the figures in Committee. Out of the stock of 4·5 million council homes, according to the 1981 house condition survey, 67,000 were unfit for human occupation, 1·5 million needed repairs of £1,000 or more, and about 0·6 million council dwellings required repairs of £2,500 or more. That is a considerable backlog of repairs to council houses. Nothing in the Bill in connection with the right to repair would have any effect on those figures. because all the repairs are well in excess of £200 per house. So there is a real need to deal with repairs and to get them done quickly. May I say that I am not pursuing a vendetta against local authorities, because the situation in the private sector is much worse. However, that is no comfort to people in council accommodation.
The second premise is that the council tenant is at a disadvantage compared with the private tenant. The courts have decided that an environmental health officer cannot use the powers that are available under the Housing Act 1957, and those available under the Public Health Act, against his own local authority. Let me give an absurd example. If a tenant in 1982 lived in a GLC flat which was in a state of gross disrepair, he could have gone to his local borough environmental health officer, and that officer could have taken proceedings under the Public Health Act 1936. If the local authority had been convicted of keeping the property in a poor state of repair, the environmental health officer of the London borough could have proceeded to have the work done in default of the Greater London council. That often happened in my constituency.
It is absurd that, as a result of the transfer of the GLC accommodation to the London boroughs, that power is no longer available to the environmental health officer because he would be acting against his own authority. In the same way as the private tenant is entitled to have a champion of his housing rights, so is the local authority tenant.
6.45 pm
There cannot be many hon. Members whose surgeries are not attended by people who come with a catalogue of complaints about the condition of their council accommodation. It happens often in my surgery. People come who are legless—I do not mean in the seasonal sense of the word, but in the sense that they have had limbs amputated—and who live on the sixth floor of a block where the lift has been out of order for several months.


Such people come to my advice bureau, bring with them a polythene bag, and say to me, "Look at these clothes". They then show me shoes, coats and trousers that are covered in green mould. They say that they have been trying to get something done for years. Sometimes I am approached by people who live on the lower floor of a block of flats and tell me, "Sewage from the upper flats is flowing into my flat". I could give a catalogue of complaints from local authority tenants against their own local authorities.
Let me put the matter in context. Most local authority tenants are relatively well looked after. However, that is no comfort to the person who is not getting repairs done, and whose rights to get something done are much less than those of private tenants. I shall quote from a letter that I received from one of my constituents, dated November 1983. It says that the complaint was
first written about 1977 and regularly thereafter. It is now newly -painted, but I can still see the daylight through it"—
that is the roof—
from my bedroom window … and so it obviously cannot have been repaired. The first heavy rain will doubtless cause the usual wet bedroom wall, the mould will grow apace and the risk of fire through contact of damp with electric wiring will continue
and so forth. That is intolerable. There has to be a way, apart from tenants taking the law into their own hands, for local authority tenants to be able to bring their landlords to heel in cases where there has been neglect of repair.
We propose in the new clause, first, that a housing tribunal should be established at local level. The tribunal would be informal. Indeed, it could be adapted to deal with similar problems in the private sector. It would be a simple, cheap and speedy way of achieving a settlement about repairs between the tenant and the local authority.
Secondly, the tribunal would have an officer, a registrar, who would not merely be a clerk to the tribunal, but an enforcement officer, using powers akin to those of the environmantal health officer under the Public Health Acts. There is plenty of precedent for that. For instance, the Director General of Fair Trading acts as the registrar of the Restrictive Practices Court. So there is no reason why the registrar should not fulfil housing repair enforcement functions.
Thirdly, the tribunal would have the right to adjudicate upon all laws relating to the repair of council housing, whether it be Housing Acts or Public Health Acts. All those powers would be vested in him.
Let me give an example. If someone came along and said that under section 32 of the Housing Act 1961 there had been a failure on the part of the local authority to deal with structural repairs to the flat or block in which the flat was situated, not only could the tenants assert their rights under common law or under section 32 of the Housing Act, but the tribunal would have the right to compel the repairs to be carried out, a right which a magistrates' court possesses under the Public Health Act 1936. So there would be both the jurisdiction and the power for the court to act. Indeed, there could be an adaptation to deal with a comprehensive range of powers and to deal with all the matters that cause tenants concern about the state of repair of their properties.
Finally, we should have a more effective system of local authorities getting major repairs done in default. There are cases where people have had to wait for years. Once that power exists, and once a tribunal can force a local authority to carry out essential repairs, the Government would be obliged to provide more money to

local authorities. I see the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) smirking. I do not think that water coming through someone's roof is a matter for smirking. Perhaps smirking is his only contribution to housing.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: rose —

Mr. Fraser: I did not mean the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), but the hon. Gentleman sitting next to him.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: In view of the dreadful situation that the hon. Gentleman is describing, may I ask him what on earth his local councillors have been doing all these years?

Mr Fraser: The example that I gave involved an authority with a housing stock of tens of thousands, many of the properties having been inherited from the Greater London council and many bought from private landlords.
I am not trying to pillory local authorities. I am saying that if there is one case in a thousand demonstrating a lack of repair and the local authority failing in its responsibility, the tenant should not be without a remedy. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South must not complain about my sense of justice.

Mr. Allan Roberts: In my constituency there are 27 Labour councillors campaigning on these very issues. They get nowhere because the Conservative council. run by councillors from Southport, does not look after council tenants and refuses to do the necessary repairs.

Mr. Fraser: My own local authority supports my proposal. Lambeth operates an informal system of giving housing notices under the Public Health Acts against its own housing authority, but they have to be marked "For information only" because they have no legal force.
Everyone agrees that there are times when housing management slips up. There are times when Governments of all persuasions restrict the amount of money that can be spent on repairs and management. Once a housing tribunal is set up which is able to record and make awards in cases of a lack of repair, the Government have to recognise the scale of the problem. Once they start to recognise that, the resources will follow.
We are talking about condensation or damp at one end of the scale and, at the other end, the failure to repair or the lack of amenities arising from system building. I have heard former Conservative housing chairmen in the House demanding that their own local authorities should get millions of pounds to remedy, say, Bison flats.
The Opposition are putting forward a simple system of adjudication as between a local authority tenant and his landlord, which will put him on a par with a private tenant in getting repairs done. Anything less would be an injustice to the local authority tenant and would tempt a local authority to treat its housing authority less well than it would treat a landlord in the private sector where there had been a complaint.
I am sure that the clause is acceptable. It is logical. It will not be dear in administrative terms to carry out. It will ensure that we bring about some improvement in the state of our housing stock. When it comes to repairs, the old adage about a stitch in time saving nine is very wise. If, at an early stage, we could get leaking roofs and other repairs dealt with quickly we would save a great deal of money in the long run.
It is wrong that the rights of the local authority tenant should be less than those of the housing association tenant, the county council tenant and the private tenant.

Mr. Chris Smith: I support the new clause because it enshrines a simple and important principle. It gives tenants — local authority tenants especially—a ready, unfrightening and informal way of redressing grievances against their landlords. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the house will support it.
There are a number of detailed aspects of the clause that are especially welcome. It includes as one of the three members of the proposed tribunal a representative of the interests of secure tenants. That is an important step forward and one that will ensure that tenants' interests are taken well into account by the tribunal when making its decisions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) pointed out, the clause also enables an independent agency to enforce environmental health legislation on behalf of council tenants. When this matter was raised in Committee, the Government's answer to our attempt to apply environmental health officers' powers to local authority dwellings was that the local authority which employed the environmental health officers could not take action against itself. That argument falls completely if the clause is accepted. The clause institutes a completely independent agency which will have the power both to ensure that inspections are carried out and to enforce subsequent action.
The clause provides an easy form of arbitration in respect of two aspects of the Bill. This was considered in Committee as well. The Government had doubts—and they admitted them — about the effectiveness of arbitration through the courts. The two aspects relate to the right to repair provisions, which we shall debate later, and to the heating charges provisions, which make such charges challengeable by tenants if the Bill becomes law. The form of arbitration that the proposed housing tribunal provides would make life a great deal easier both for tenants and for local authorities.
Throughout the Committee proceedings the Government made great play of their commitment to the tenants' charter provisions in the Housing Act 1980. They claimed that they were all in favour of giving the tenants of local authorities especially the greatest number of rights that they could possibly have. They claimed, although I suspect that we shall be able to reveal how fraudulent the claim is, that their provisions in clause 24 for a tenant's so-called right to repair gave tenants a substantial new right.
The new clause would give a real right to tenants—a right not just to challenge their landlords but to ensure that their landlords carried out their legal responsibilities for keeping properties in decent repair and in a habitable condition. We ought to welcome that. We should want to give tenants that real additional right. The clause gives that right. The Government must accept it as a worthy suggestion since they claimed throughout our proceedings in Committee that that was their earnest, heartfelt desire. This proposal is an easy and ready way to give tenants

extra clout. It gives them rights and the power to enforce those rights. I am sure that the clause will be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that this principle had been raised in Committee. So it was. In Committee, we also considered the essential difference between the tenants of housing associations and tenants in the private sector as against secure tenants. Secure tenants have the right through the ballot box to change their landlords. Neither of the other two classes of tenants has that opportunity. If repairs are not being done properly, the correct procedure for secure tenants is to make representations to their ward councillors and other councillors to ensure that they carry out their duties.
What is proposed in the clause is another tier of useless and expensive bureaucracy.

Sir George Young: I note that the threat of reselection is already so great for Opposition Members that they have to read into the record letters written by members of their general management committees.

Mr. John Fraser: In case the hon. Gentleman thought that I was acting in my own interests, I ought to tell him that I have many more members of my GMC who are also members of the local housing committee than tenants who write such letters to me.

7 pm

Sir George Young: I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said about repairs. I hope that we can look forward to the enthusiastic support of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on clause 24, which will improve the position on some of those repairs. The need for local housing tribunals has a fairly long history. Criticisms have been voiced in many quarters about the present arrangements for settling disputes between landlords and tenants.
Although both the hon. Members for Norwood and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) spoke mainly about repairs, the new clause covers all rights of secure tenants, not just repairs. If there is to be a housing tribunal to deal with all rights, it does not make sense to confine it to public sector tenants. However, I realise that there are problems about the long title of the Bill, and I suspect that that is why the private tenant is excluded from such tribunals.
Nevertheless, if the Government should consider setting up tribunals to settle disputes between landlords and tenants, it would not be sensible unless they covered both the public and private sector. The difficulties of the present system for settling disputes are much the same in both cases, although I accept that private sector tenants have the additional weapon—denied to the public sector tenant—of going to the environmental health officer.
The Government are considering the question of establishing housing courts or tribunals. The Select Committee on the Environment, in its report on the private rented housing sector, recommended that the Government should consider the idea of a housing court. In its response to the Committee in November 1982, the Government said that they would further consider that idea. The Department has been doing so, for both public and private sector landlord-tenant disputes. We have been helped in our deliberations by papers received from the Royal Institution


of Chartered Surveyors, the Institute of Housing, and the Shelter Housing Aid Centre and I understand that Justice will be forwarding its views. Of course, we shall also consider what has been said tonight.
Nevertheless, as I am sure the hon. Member for Norwood recognises, this is a somewhat complicated subject, and some issues need to be examined very carefully. Although the present system is subject to criticism on grounds of its formality and complexity, it has to be remembered that some of the matters dealt with by the proposed tribunal would cover a very wide range of issues, some of which could raise complex legal questions, and some of which—such as repairs to blocks of flats—would involve large amounts of money. In such cases, legal expertise is bound to be important, and there are dangers in departing from the established court system. In addition, although it is said that the present system is expensive both for tenants and landlords, the alternative would not be much cheaper without significant Government expenditure.
Therefore, many issues need to be considered carefully. One possibility that Ministers are considering is that of issuing a consultation paper to invite wider comment by all interests concerned. I do not think that the House would expect me to give an undertaking to come forward at a later stage with an amendment to this Bill on a matter with far-reaching consequences. I certainly cannot undertake to do so. However, having given the topic an airing on the Floor of the House, hon. Members will know that the Government are seriously considering the issue of housing tribunals. Accordingly, I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood will consider withdrawing the motion, on the understanding that we are looking at his idea, although in a somewhat wider context.

Mr. John Fraser: If I was a magistrate, I would put the Minister on probation. That means that I shall withdraw the motion, while requesting a right to return to the subject on some future occasion. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

RIGHT TO BUY FOR POLICE OFFICERS

(1) Whenever a Police Authority owns a house that has been provided for the accommodation of police officers in its area, and that house becomes surplus to the operational requirements of the police service in that area, it shall be the duty of that Police Authority to offer any police officer who is resident in that house, or in any other house provided to him by the police authority, a right to buy the house which is surplus.
(2) Any serving Police Officer to whom an offer is made in accordance with subsection (1) above shall have the right to purchase that surplus house at the same discounts that are available to any other resident of a local or public authority house to which the Housing Act 1980 or this Act applies.
(3) The determination of whether a house belonging to a police authority is surplus to the operational needs of the police service shall be made by the Chief Officer of Police for the area'.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment (a) to the new clause, leave out 'Chief Officer of Police' and insert 'Police Authority'.

Mr. Griffiths: I should like first to provide hon. Members with the background to the new clause. Police officers have traditionally been housed in provided accommodation. Regrettably, they have often been housed in colonies which became ghettoes that isolated them from the rest of the community. In recent and more enlightened times, police officers have been encouraged to follow the trend of the rest of the population, and to move from their provided accommodation into home ownership. That trend was greatly encouraged by the Police Advisory Board which, as its working party report clearly said, identified important financial savings that could be made by reducing the housing stocks held by police authorities. Savings on maintenance and replacement could also be enjoyed.
Thus, the sale of surplus police houses has now become a regular feature of most forces. Not unnaturally, police tenants of those houses have, from time to time, availed themselves of the opportunity to move into home ownership by buying them. However, for the most part they have had to purchase them at strictly open market prices.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister has been able, in the new clauses and amendments intr:tduced today, to achieve equilibrium—as he put it—between the position in England and Wales and that in Scotland. As I understand it, a police officer who is allowed to purchase his police authority home will henceforth be able to do so using the same discount arrangements as apply to another type of tenant who has had the same period of occupancy. That is a material gain, and the police service is most grateful to the Minister for his co-operation in that respect.
My new clause also deals with the right to purchase police houses that have become surplus to the operational needs of a police force. There are hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of police houses that are now surplus to the operational requirements of the police. It is difficult to decide when a police house has become surplus to requirements, but my new clause would provide that the decision should rest with the chief officer, who alone can determine whether a house is any longer operationally necessary for his force. I note the amendment tabled by the Opposition and I well understand why they have done so. However, the point is that where a police house has manifestly become surplus to need, and is either standing empty and is a waste of resources, or is occupied by a police officer not for operational purposes, but because it is convenient to him or the authority, there should be, prima facie, an obligation on the police authority to dispose of it.
If my hon. Friend the Minister can accept that proposition, I hope that he can also accept at least the principle behind my amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), the former Minister for Housing and Construction, and my hon. Friend who adorns that post today, have been active in writing to and circularising police authorities, asking them not only to provide discounts to police officers who buy such houses but to dispose of surplus houses.
To put it mildly, the response has been very patchy. Authorities have discretion about enabling police officers to purchase such houses, and only two of them—Merseyside and Staffordshire—dispose of such houses to police tenants at the full rate of discount. Several other schemes with lesser discounts have been arranged in the forces of Surrey, Hertfordshire, Gwent, Greater


Manchester and Sussex. There are some forces where agreements in principle with their respective police authorities have either been concluded, or are nearing completion, but, regrettably, some of those schemes have been put aside by the full local authority, occasionally on political grounds.
My concern rests with the majority of authorities, where agreement has not been reached to implement such schemes, and where surplus houses have accumulated and are not being disposed of. The new clause would deal with that by placing a duty on the police authority which owns a house that is provided to accommodate police officers, but which has become surplus to requirements, to offer it to any police officer who is resident in it. Any police officer to whom such an offer was made would be able to purchase at the same discount as is available to any resident of a local or public authority house.
I do not think there is any point in my pressing the matter all the way because I am well aware that my hon. Friend does not have available to him the powers to compel police authorities. I am well aware that there are arguments against a Government compelling chief officers in particular in respect of operational matters. That is bound to include operational police housing. Nevertheless, I hope that he will accept that there is a problem—surplus houses that ought to be disposed of—and there is a solution—that police authorities should make them available to police officers at the full discount. My new clause would achieve that result.

Mr. Allan Roberts: If a policeman is living in a police house, how can it be surplus to requirements?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Often where a police house is surplus, and for one reason or another a police officer who may have newly moved into an area and who may be intending to purchase a home requires accommodation, he may have the opportunity to use a house that has been declared surplus to operational needs for a period of time while he is providing himself with other accommodation. That is a slightly complicated situation, but it happens. It would not be in the interests of the House if I were to pursue it at great length.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend has moved his new clause eloquently and persuasively, but I want to tell the House briefly why I shall advise that we should not agree to the new clause and why I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw it.
The prospect of any empty house remaining unoccupied for a period is unacceptable to every person who cares about meeting housing need. I agree with my hon. Friend that in some parts of the country police authorities have allowed houses that are surplus to requirement to remain empty. That I deplore, as does my hon. Friend.
He has drawn attention to the widely differing practices of police authorities under the current consent to sell surplus dwellings at a discount. Some are prepared to sell at right-to-buy levels of discount; some are not prepared to offer any discount. Nevertheless—I say this to my hon. Friend with real regret—I do not think that it would be right to place an obligation on police authorities to sell houses in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

Dr. Alan Glyn: To what extent is this a problem? Is it hundreds or thousands of houses?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: There are 200 in Surrey.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) tells us that there are 200 in Surrey. I have no figures. My hon. Friend probably has better figures than I have about police accommodation surplus to requirement.
The essence of the Housing Act 1980 is that it gives certain defined categories of sitting tenant a right to buy their homes. We cannot build into that scheme a provision that gives tenants a right to buy only where the landlord is prepared to sell and purports to give to more than one person a right to buy the same house. The House has agreed the Government's proposals to extend the right-tobuy provisions to certain county council tenants. A police committee is usually formed as a committee of a county council. To that extent, police housing is relevant in the context of the Government's amendments.
We have concluded, however, that dwellings provided by a police authority to police officers should be excluded from the security and right-to-buy provisions of the Bill. Such dwellings are provided in pursuance of the Police Regulations 1979. It would not be right in my view to impose a duty to sell dwellings provided to officers under those regulations.
That leaves an important question. In the absence of legislation, what can be done to ensure that houses that are not occupied and are surplus to requirement are brought into use? The answer must lie with the police authorities. Under the terms of the general consents, we have given those authorities the right to sell on the same terms that are available to district councils. I hope that the authorities that possess houses surplus to requirement will reconsider the powers we have already given to them, and that they will exercise those powers in the most positive way.
In the light of what I have said—I give my hon. Friend an undertaking to keep the matter under review—I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his new clause.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am obliged to the Minister. I am necessarily disappointed that he does not feel able to go further, although I understand the constraints upon him.
I said from a sedentary position that I understood there were some 200 surplus houses in Surrey. I am advised that the exact position is that some 200 police houses have been identified as being surplus to the existing or expected operational requirements of the force. These are being offered for sale to police officers over a two-year period, which seems a curious way of going about it. Either they are surplus or they are not.
7.15 pm
To respond to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), I should have thought there are many hundreds across the country and it may be into four figures, so it is not an insignificant problem. I find it a curious situation that a surplus police house in some authorities can be, and sometimes is, absorbed by the local authority into its general housing stock, whereupon, on becoming tenanted by an existing council house occupier, it must by law immediately be sold at a considerable discount. Thus, in practice, if the police authority does not offer it to the police officer, one


way or another it may well end up being sold at a discount to another person. My hon. Friend will understand that that does not sit very well in the mind of police officers.
I ask my hon. Friend whether he will equip himself with the figures so that he knows the size of the problem and that, in such way as he has available in collecting housing statistics—I believe he has considerable ways of so doing—he requires of local authorities that the police authority should make him aware that houses have been declared surplus to operational need to identify the dimension of the problem. He and I in our various ways, no doubt with assistance from hon. Gentlemen opposite, will be able to bring such persuading powers to bear on the recalcitrant authorities.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 41 OF HOUSING ACT 1980

'In section 41 of the Housing Act 1980 there shall at the end of subsection (1) be inserted the following words—

"and shall include in a written tenancy agreement such information as is reasonably necessary to draw to the attention of a secure tenant the tenant's rights under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection.".'.—[Mr. Allan Roberts.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 5 is tabled by the Opposition with the intention to assist the Government in their often-stated claim that they have done something for council tenants by passing into legislation a tenants' charter in the Housing Act 1980. The Government's housing policy is based on the belief that there are no housing problems and that it is not necessary to build any more houses for rent, so one can sell off the best houses for rent that are owned by local authorities and housing associations. One of the Government's problems is to convince council tenants who do not wish to purchase and those in housing need that they are doing something for people in housing need and for council tenants. In an attempt to stave off criticisms of their tragic record, the Government quote the tenants' charter provisions of the Housing Act 1980. One of the main provisions of that tenants' charter is in section 41 of the Housing Act 1980, which requires local authorities to inform their tenants of their rights in writing, including the repair obligations of landlords and all the rights of secure tenants included in the tenants' charter in the 1980 Act. Although that reads well in the 1980 Act, local authority after local authority has ignored the provisions, and the Department of the Environment and the Government have done little about that.
Shelter recently carried out a national survey on tenancy agreements. It took a large sample of agreements from different types of authorities, and carefully examined the steps that they had taken to meet the requirements of the Act to provide information to tenants on their rights. Shelter examined information published by 220 local authorities under sections 32 and 33 of the Housing Act 1961, which deal with the repairing obligations of landlords. The 1980 Act required local authorities to give notice in writing about those provisions.
Of the 220 local authorities, 24 per cent. did not mention a landlord's obligation to repair the structure and exterior of a dwelling; 30 per cent. did not mention a

landlord's obligation to keep in repair the installations in the dwelling; and 63 per cent. did not specify which items of repair were a landlord's responsibility under section 32 of the 1961 Act. There are no teeth in the 1980 Act to enforce the provisions of the tenants' charter. Compared with the Government's assiduity in pursuing local authorities to ensure that the right-to-buy provisions are implemented, the Department of the Environment and the Government have virtually ignored the provisions of the tenants' charter.
Action is needed, and my new clause will provide that. It provides that local authorities must write into tenancy agreements the tenant's rights and the repairing obligations of landlords. It is an attempt to strengthen Conservative legislation. It would put some teeth into the 1980 tenents' charter.

Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, had the provisions in the new clause been incorporated in the 1980 Act, when the present Bill becomes law that information would be out of date? There may be a danger that as years pass information will become out of date if there is subsequent legislation.

Mr. Roberts: It rests squarely on local authorities to update information and to provide tenants regularly with updated tenancy agreements. That should be the duty of a local authority landlord—and, indeed, every landlord.
I hope that the new clause is accepted so that the tenants' charter can be strengthened. During the Committee stage of the 1980 Bill, the tenants' charter received all-party support. Indeed, it was based on a Labour Government Bill published pior to 1979 which fell because of the general election. We would like to see the charter strengthened. Indeed, our Bill contained much stronger provisions than the 1980 charter.
The Government have not put any teeth into the 1980 Act and have done little to ensure that the provisions for tenants' rights are followed. Indeed, we suspect that the only reason that the Government provided security for tenants in the 1980 Act was that that was a prerequisite of the framing of the Act to provide the laws necessary for the right-to-buy provisions. The Government were interested only in the right-to-buy provisions and not in the tenants' charter even though they quote the charter to the Opposition and everyone else when we criticise their lamentable housing record and their policy on not building any new council houses.
The tenants' charter exists in word, but is not implemented in deed. Paternalistic housing authorities still operate, and not least in my local authority. As I said in Committee, the tenants' charter reminds me of Stanley Holloway's Magna Carta. It is because of that tenants' charter
that was signed by the barons of old, that in England today you can do as you like as long as you do as you're told.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the new clause. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said that tenants need much more than the rights it provides, and one cannot deny that. Despite the information that may be given to tenants—and it is a piecemeal operation by authorities which comply either with the letter or the spirit of the 1980 Act—they are still not clear about their rights. If the new clause were accepted it would give practical guidance to secure tenants that would be simple to understand. For example, if a secure


tenant suffered nuisance in his home because of major building work he would know that he was entitled to compensation and would not have to accept the amount offered by the local housing committee. Various other provisions will immediately apply to secure tenants if the new clause is included in the Bill. It would put together a list of tenants' pre-existing rights.
Of course, other tenants need rights, and I hope that that will be dealt with in the future legislation on housing tribunals that was referred to by the Minister. There might be scope for specifying the rights of tenants in both the private and public sectors.
The Government's plans—which received all-party support — to provide for public sector tenants the information that they need to enforce their rights have not worked sufficiently well. I doubt whether tenants in more than a small percentage of local authorities are satisfied that they have information and simple instructions on how to obtain what we, as legislators, intend them to have—limited though that is.
No harm will be done if the new clause is accepted. It may not be perfect, but it will improve the current position. If it is not accepted, I hope that a similar provision will be incorporated into the Bill at a later stage.

Mr. Butterfill: I sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). I think that he misunderstood my point, which is that his proposed mechanism is wrong because it does not provide for the updating of information. It would freeze information for all time.
Section 41 of the 1980 Act provides that everybody should
from time to time, publish information".
That provides for the updating of information. The problem lies with the operation of the 1980 Act, so the hon. Gentleman's proposed mechanism is wrong.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I have listened with great interest to all the points that have been made. The Government also want secure tenants to know everything that they should know about their tenancies, their tenants' charter rights and their landlords' repairing obligations. I am still not convinced that the new clause is necessary. The landlord is already required to provide information in simple terms.
7.30 pm
Landlords must first publish in as much detail as they consider appropriate information about tenancy conditions which are normally set out expressly in the tenancy agreement or on the rent card. Secondly, they must set out information about the package of rights in parts II and III of the Act, known as the tenants' charter, and about the landlord's repair and maintenance obligations as set out in sections 32 and 33 of the Housing Act 1961. Having published that information, the landlord must give it to the secure tenants. Many put it in a tenants' handbook.
Hon. Members are worried, not about what is happening, but about what is not happening. Action is needed rather than further legislation. Tenants must also receive a written statement of any terms affecting their tenancy which are not already spelt out in the tenancy agreement or implied by law. I do not see the necessity to spell out the requirement further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) talked about the freezing of information. The tenancy agreement is not the appropriate place for information since tenancy agreement provisions should be set out in precise terms. Our requirement is specific. A statutory duty on landlords is set out in section 41 of the Act. If authorities do not meet their obligations, they fail their tenants badly. That does not happen because of lack of legislation, and I ask the House to reject the clause.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 6

PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS OF REPAIR

'For the avoidance of doubt nothing in section 24 of this Act shall diminish or prejudice a secure tenant's right to enforce his landlord's obligation to repair or any rights of a secure tenant under the common law to carry out a repair and seek reimbursement from his landlord.'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will he convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 16, in page 24, line 19, leave out clause 24.
No. 17, in clause 24, page 24, line 35, at end insert 'and
(c) providing that the right of a secure tenant to carry out repairs shall not arise unless the landlord has failed to carry out repairs within such periods of time as may reasonably have been prescribed by each landlord for different classes of repairs in a scheme published for its area and after consultation with its secure tenants.'.
No. 18, in page 24, line 44, leave out 'county court' and insert
'an arbitration panel which shall consist of one landlord's representative, one tenants' representative and one independent person'.
No. 20, in page 25, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 21, in page 25, line 10, at end insert—
'(6) Where a tenant hires a contractor to carry out work in pursuance of his rights under this section and the contractor is negligent in carrying out the said work. the landlord shall either indemnify the tenant for all losses incurred or rectify the damage attributable to the contractor's negligence on the tenant assigning to the landlord his rights of action against the contractor'.
No. 22, in page 25, line 10, at end insert—
'(7) The landlord shall reimburse the tenant within 21 days of receipt of a proper claim for payment. If such payment is not made within 21 days the contractor shall be entitled to recover from the landlord full payment of his account'.
No. 23, in page 25, line 11, at end insert
'or any part of the building of which the dwellinghouse forms part'.
No. 24, in page 25, line 11, at end insert—
'(5) The landlord shall re-imburse the tenant for all approved costs incurred by the tenant in the exercise of his rights under this section'.
No. 25, in page 25, line 11, at end insert—
'(5) No regulations shall be made under this section or the following section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause and the amendments are connected with clause 24 and the right to repair. Clause 24 will be supplemented by regulations and it will give the council tenant the right to carry out repairs himself and to recover the cost, provided that the cost is above £20 and below £200. There are a mass of objections to the way that the Government have gone about this provision.
First, the right to repair in the Bill weakens the fundamental duty of the landlord to carry out his


responsibility for repairs. His responsibility is loosened. The landlord should not have a chance to offload his obligations on to his tenant.
The Government have based the provision for the right to repair on the Havering borough council experiences. In the next financial year that council is budgeting to transfer £1·7 million from its housing revenue account to its general rate fund. One way that council tenants can be made to subsidise other ratepayers in Havering is by diminishing the extent of its responsibilities for carrying out repairs for its tenants. The provision is unfair in terms of apportioning responsibility. It is a sloth's charter for local authorities.
The second objection to the provision is that it changes fundamental law. Under paragraph (b) the power to make regulations could relieve the landlord of his responsibility at general law, hence the new clause.
The third objection is that the right to repair will be disruptive of reasonable and effective planned maintenance systems. The opportunity will be given to interrupt planned maintenance cycles and to prevent local authorities from carrying out repairs in a reasonable time. That is why we have included amendment No. 17 which provides that:
the right … to carry out repairs shall not arise unless the landlord has failed to carry out repairs within such periods of time as may reasonably have been prescribed by each landlord".
The next objection is that the provision is likely to be a brothers-in-law charter or a cowboys' charter. Door-to-door salesmen will go round council estates saying, "Let me do the repair. It's all right, you will be able to get the money back from the local authority." One of the greatest consumer abuses involves the door-to-door salesman. They will con little old ladies and other vulnerable people to pay them on the doorstep for repairs and leave the tenants to try to get the money back. They will not be able to do that if they have not gone through the bureaucratic process. Alternatively, the brother-in-law will present an exaggerated bill for shoddy work.
The next objection is that the provision exposes tenants to the risk of negligence. There is no reason why, if the local authority is offloading its responsibilities, it should not indemnify tenants against negligence by contractors. That is covered in amendment No. 21. The provision also exposes tenants to the risk of non-payment by local authorities within a reasonable time, hence amendment No. 22, which obliges local authorities to repay within 21 days.
We must bear in mind that two thirds of council tenants are in receipt of housing benefit and are not in a position to take on repairs themselves. Even less are they in a position to leave bills for payment by the authority if work has been done.
The provision will create a bureaucrat's charter. If a tenant wants to exercise the right to repair, what must he do? First, he has to look at the Bill and ask himself what clause 24 means. He has to try to digest it and then examine the regulations. Then he must look at his tenancy agreement and if one of our amendments is passed he must also examine the local authority scheme and work out the time span for various repairs. Then he must look at his bank balance to see whether he has the money. He must then serve notice on the local authority and has to wait for a counter-notice.
If the local authority disagrees with him he has to go through a form of arbitration at the county court. If he wins

at the county court he undertakes the repair. He sends in a bill to the local authority for payment, but the local authority could disagree with him about payment and the matter could be put before the county court for a second time to resolve whether the work was up to quality and worth the amount involved. The tenant might eventually receive payment if he survives that bureaucratic nightmare.
I remember what the Financial Times said when I took the Unfair Contract Terms Act through the House. An editorial or feature writer said that as a result of the Labour Government's Act most companies would have no alternative but to do what they had promised to do. Local authorities should do what they promise to do and not offload the responsibility on to the tenant.

Mr. Chris Smith: I rise to support the new clause and its attendant amendments. The Government claim that clause 24 gives tenants a right to repair—a right to call in contractors to have work carried out if the local authority is unable or unwilling to do it. The Government claim that this will be a major benefit and an advantage to council tenants. It will be nothing of the kind, and I hope that the Government will be honest enough to admit that I am right.
The Opposition amendments seek to bring about major and real improvements in the half-baked attempt at a right-to-repair scheme that the Government have put before us. First, our amendments give the landlord—the local authority or housing association—a chance to carry out the repairs in accordance with an agreed schedule of repairs and an agreed time scale. In our view, it is important that tenants should know what their rights are in terms of timing and also that the local authorities, through their direct labour departments, should have an opportunity in the first instance to carry out the work in accordance with the rights spelt out to the tenant.
Secondly, in the case of a dispute between landlord and tenant, our amendments would allow for arbitration to be carried out by a small panel rather than through the paraphernalia of a court hearing. Although the Government appeared to accept that point in Standing Committee, there is no sign on the Amendment Paper that they propose to make such a change. We have therefore put down an amendment to do precisely that. Tenants should have a right to go to arbitration to a forum that is not frightening and which is easy of access.
Thirdly, we seek to protect tenants against negligence by the contractor. If a tenant is having plumbing work done, for example, and the contractor is negligent and floods the flat below, the tenant may well find himself with a large bill for repairs to the flat below although he has done nothing to cause the problem. In our view, the bill for negligence should not land on the tenant's lap.
Finally, we seek to make the system of payment easier and faster for the tenant. Under the Government's scheme, the tenant has to pay the contractor and then wait while the local authority processes his application for reimbursement. At a stroke, that procedure will deprive the tenant who cannot afford to shell out in the first place of the opportunity to avail himself of his so-called right. We should remember that about 50 per cent. of council tenants are on housing benefit or supplementary benefit and that the income level of council tenants is substantially lower than the level of average earnings. It is ludicrous to assume


that most tenants will be able to pay for the repair in the first instance—the cost may be up to £200—and to wait for weeks or months for the local authority to cough up.
Furthermore, in their proposed regulations, the Government are allowing the local authorities to pay out only 75 per cent. of what it would have cost the landlord to carry out the repair. We believe that it is only right, proper and just that the tenant should be reimbursed for the actual cost of the approved repair. In all these ways, we are seeking to improve, for the sake of tenants who try to avail themselves of this right, the proposals of the Government.
7.45 pm
The Government's proposals will be available to only about half of the total of council tenants simply because, in forcing the tenants to pay in the first place, they are imposing an income test. However, those tenants who can avail themselves of the opportunities given to them by the Bill will find that they are running the risks of being sued for negligence, of engaging bad contractors to do the work or of waiting for weeks or months to be reimbursed by the local authority. I hope that the Government will have the decency not to trumpet this provision as a great new right but to admit honestly that it is a paltry scheme, available only to some tenants, and imposing enormous risks on those tenants who make use of it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There is a substantial reason for objecting to the original clause, and for supporting the new clause and many of the opposition amendments as a residual alternative. What the Government are describing as a new right clearly falls short of being that. It is wrong to mislead people into thinking that they are to have a right to have a repair done. Anyone thinking only briefly about the provision, or indeed anyone investigating it, would assume that they would be repaid for the cost of the repair, because they know that it would not have been their obligation to finance that repair. The clause is fundamentally misleading.
Nobody doubts that there should be a residual entitlement to turn to someone other than the local authority when the local authority has failed to do the job that it is its duty to do. However, the Government should not say that there is a right to have the repair done when the proposal falls far short of reimbursing the tenant. The House should not accept the provision in its unamended form. I hope that the Government will accept that they are not giving the tenants what they say that they want the tenants to have—a clear entitlment to be recompensed when the local authority does not do its duty. The Government should think again and accept some of the amendments, if not the new clause.

Sir George Young: As hon. Members who were not already familiar with the provisions of the Bill will have gathered, the proposed section 41A to the Housing Act 1980 provides for a right to repair which can be exercised by secure tenants of local authorities, housing associations and new town development corporations. Listening to the first two speeches, it was difficult to believe that the Labour party professes to favour the right to repair. The comments about the whole principle—let alone the detail—were somewhat churlish.
The substance of the clause lies in the first subsection, which gives the Secretary of State power to introduce a

scheme by regulations whereby secure tenants could carry out repairs for which their landlords are responsible and, on their conclusion, claim payment for them. During the summer recess, we embarked on a consultation process by issuing a paper outlining the Government's provisional views on the detailed arrangements, including a number of important limitations and conditions to help ensure cost-effectiveness and practicability. We invited comments from representative bodies of public sector landlords, including local authority associations and organisations representing other housing interests. Nearly all those bodies have now responded, and many others have also offered us their views. The other amendments that have been tabled pick up some specific issues contained in the responses.
I will assume that the House is familiar with the main points of our proposal. We have to remember that the right to repair is an entirely optional extra for tenants. If they do not want it—if they believe some of the accusations which have been laid against the scheme—there is no reason at all why they should indulge in it. Opposition Members are free to advise their constituents not to make use of it. I shall certainly tell my constituents in Acton and Ealing that the scheme is of real advantage to them and the local authority and I shall, in certain circumstances, urge them to use the right to repair.

Mr. Robert Litherland: What would the hon. Gentleman advise me to tell my constituents when unemployment in some areas is over 40 per cent. and people do not have the option to repair their dwellings because they simply cannot afford to?

Sir George Young: With respect, the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was that if 50 per cent. of the people cannot have it, nobody shall have it. It is a typically Socialist response to deny a benefit to many people simply because not everyone can have it.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister is giving an utterly incorrect caricature of my argument. My argument was that 50 per cent. of the people will not be able to avail themselves of the right and that the other 50 per cent. will be able to avail themselves of a fundamentally imperfect and shoddy right.

Sir George Young: I shall deal shortly with some of the hon. Gentleman's detailed arguments. However, if he reads Hansard he will find that one of the arguments that he deployed against the scheme was that 50 per cent. of the population would not be able to use it.
We are not trying to shift any additional responsibility for repairs on to tenants. The proposed scheme simply provides an alternative method for execution of repairs which are the landlord's responsibility. The minimum extent of those responsibilities is already defined by statute in many cases. There are also additional contractual obligations in many tenancy agreements. Hon. Members know that landlords already have a duty under section 41 of the Housing Act 1980 to inform secure tenants about their repairing obligations. If new clause 6 is approved, we shall ensure that they all tell their tenants about the right to repair.
There will be some safeguards in the scheme for tenants if landlords do not do what is required of them. If a landlord withholds consent for a repair because he intends


to do the work himself but then fails to do the work within a specified period, the tenant will be entitled to carry out the repair, provided that it is within the scheme, and to recover 100 per cent. of what would have been its cost to the landlord. Moreover, if a landlord fails to respond to the tenant's repair notice within 21 days, or does not specify the cost to the landlord of carrying out the repair, the tenant may carry out the work himself. In such a case the tenant would be entitled to recover 100 per cent. of the cost of doing that repair.
Hon. Members have many views of the proposal which was set out in detail in my Department's consultation paper. I must emphasise, however, that it represented our initial thoughts and not a final statement of what the regulations might, under the proposed new power, provide for. We have an open mind on many of the suggestions that have been made today, in Committee and in response to the consultation paper. Nevertheless, the Opposition still seem to think that the Government are hatching a sinister plot to do tenants out of their rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to help tenants to have the opportunity to do repairs to their homes.
In an earlier debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House identified real problems of long-standing repairs. New clause 24 will provide a positive opportunity for tenants to get such repairs done more quickly. Some tenants might have to devote a little of their own time and effort to achieve that but they should not ulitmately be out of pocket. In that process, they will have to take some responsibility and care. However, I believe that tenants have a much more responsible approach to these matters than, apparently, do Opposition Members.
The Government have not yet made up their mind about the final form of the regulations which will bring the scheme into effect. We have listened carefully to all the points that have been made today. All of those views will be taken into consideration with other responses to the consultation paper. It might be helpful if, when we come to a conclusion, there is a suitable opportunity for comment on the draft regulations before we put them to the House.

Mr. John Fraser: One amendment suggests that the regulations should be subject to approval by affirmative resolution by the House. Will the Minister accept that amendment?

Sir George Young: No. The Government will not accept any of the amendments. The amendment to which the hon. Gentleman referred would simply delay implementation and deny tenants the right to repair their homes until we have gone through the somewhat lengthy procedure that it identifies. I see no reason for dealing with these regulations different from what is already proposed.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 235.

Division No. 118]
[7.55 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Barnett. Guy
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Barron, Kevin
Caborn, Richard


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bidwell, Sydney Clarke, Thomas
Boyes, Roland Clay, Robert

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

INDEPENDENCE OF APPROVED INSPECTORS

(1) A person acting as an Approved Inspector shall not have had, until final notice is given, any direct or indirect financial or professional interest in the work specified.
(2) A person acting as an Approved Inspector who contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction in accordance with the provisions of section 40(2) of this Act.".—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8 pm

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:

New Clause 8

APPOINTMENT OF APPROVED INSPECTORS

(1) A person shall only be appointed as an Approved Inspector if he satisfies the Secretary of State or the body referred to in subsection (1)(b) of section 32 of this Act that he is a fit person to be so appointed.
(2) In determining whether a person is fit to be appointed an Approved Inspector the Secretary of State or the body referred to in subsection (1)(b) of section 32 of this Act shall have regard to section (Independence of approved inspectors) of this Act and to any circumstances appearing to him or that body to be relevant, and in particular any evidence tending to show that the applicant has

(a) committed any offence involving fraud or other dishonesty;
(b) contravened any provision under this or under any Act with regard to compliance with building regulations.".

Government amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 42.

Mr. John Fraser: We come now to the private control provisions of the Bill and yet another measure of privatisation. I believe that the Government would privatise the Queen as constitutional monarch if they


thought that it would have a beneficial effect on the money supply. These provisions, however, deal with the lesser matter of privatisation of building inspectors.
We oppose in principle the Government's proposals for privatisation of building control. They have the support of virtually no one. They are not supported by the professional organisations, the public at large or even the builders. So far as I know, virtually the only support for them comes from the National House Building Council.
It is a great pity to eat away at a system of building control which has worked well and in which there is public confidence. It is consistent, it is local and there are no serious complaints about the way in which it operates, about its effectiveness, its honesty or its integrity.
Privatising such a system is bad enough, but the Bill —incredibly—contains no guarantees as to the financial independence and integrity of private approved inspectors. That is absolutely wrong. We may agree to differ about whether there should be private inspectors, but we should surely all agree that such inspectors should have no personal financial interest in the building contracts that they supervise. Yet the Government envisage that under their new regulations in the case of small conversions and rear additions to dwellings the same person could have an interest in the contract as both surveyor and building inspector. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) looks puzzled.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am never puzzled.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have constituency problems of this kind. If neighbour A complains about neighbour B's house extension, under the present system the hon. Gentleman can refer neighbour A to the local authority and suggest that he speak to the district surveyor and the local private building inspector to see whether the extension really interferes with rights to light and air, footings and so on. In future, however, neighbour B will be able to employ the same person to design the extension and to act as the building inspector. If the hon. Member for Southend, East is not puzzled, I hope that he is concerned. It is utterly wrong that a private inspector should have a financial interest in the contract.
The purpose of new clause 7 is self-evident. It provides that
an Approved Inspector shall not have had, until final notice is given, any direct or indirect financial or professional interest in the work specified
and makes it an offence for him to do so. It is absolutely right thus to preserve the integrity of and public confidence in the building inspection system.
New clause 8 provides that any person convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty is disqualified from being a building inspector. We have also tabled proposals that approval of a private building inspector should be for a limited period such as three years.
We oppose this privatisation in principle, but at the very least safeguards should be written into the Bill to ensure integrity and lack of financial interest on the part of the building inspector. That is not provided in the Bill. I believe, as I am sure that Conservative Members also believe, that a guarantee of that level of probity must be written into the primary legislation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I wish to ask the Minister four brief questions about this new clause, but otherwise it is a blameless and worthy Bill.
One is always reluctant to change what appears to be working relatively well, but will the Minister give the House some guidance about what standards will he required of building inspectors or approved persons? At present those standards are high and the public have confidence in the inspectorate.
What will the position be of an individual who at present is free to make a complaint to the building inspectorate that approved plans are not being adhered to? All hon. Members know of cases in their constituencies, in which planning permission has been given and building control approved for an extension or a garage, for example, and neighbours become outraged if it appears to them that the building is not being carried out in accordance with the approved plans—if something is moved a foot, thereby depriving them of sunlight, or if the wrong materials are used.
We must remember that all planning permission affects both the individual who is having a job done and those who live nearby. Under clause 31(1)(a) and (b), if building is going ahead and has been considered by an approved person, there is no locus or standing for the local authority to step in to ensure that the job is being done as originally approved. If a job is covered by an approved person, has the local authority no right to investigate an inquiry from a member of the public or a neighbour about whether the job is being done as it should be?
Does the Minister not think that there is a danger of what might loosely be called a cosy relationship developing between the builders, the surveyors and the approved persons? We have no idea of the professions, standing or interests of the approved persons. Obviously, if a cosy or business relationship were established between an approved inspector and the person making the development, the general public would be disadvantaged. At present, the public official concerned has no interest in such matters as surveying, architecture, building or the supply of building materials.
I am sorry to raise those questions, because I wish to make it abundantly clear that the Bill is splendid. However, there are grounds for disquiet. I am worried that, in putting forward those proposals, the Government are endangering the security of the public, and introduc:ing fewer professional standards and less general protection for building and control.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I share the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), although I do not share his approval of the Bill.
Recently I met representatives of the building control staff who serve my area. I am aware of the considerable respect they command and of the dedicated integrity they manifest. They are beyond reproach and are widely experienced, so they can comment generally about the Bill. In the Rotherham area there are 21 building control officers, 19 of whom are qualified—the qualification is a substantial one—and two of whom are training. To qualify they must have three years' satisfactory experience, and therefore they have considerable knowledge of the building industry. Given that knowledge, and their searching consideration of the Bill., they are entitled to express their reservations about it.
The staff were also anxious about the professional changes introduced by the Bill. They said that their principal role is seeking to prevent difficulty. but unfortunately the Bill seems to be less concerned with


preventing difficulty than with responding to difficulties which its conditions might create, as the hon. Member for Southend, East said. Any diminution of their role would be deplorable.
8.15 pm
They were also anxious about the independence of surveyors. As the Bill is drafted, there is insufficient evidence that independence will be regarded as important and will be emphasised, and that any weaknesses will be detected before the Bill becomes law.
I suppose that it is too much to ask the Government to accept the Opposition's amendments, but we are entitled to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter, which has caused serious anxiety to professional men of great integrity. The matter is important, and I hope that the Minister will give the House the assurance that society is justified in seeking.
It is important to note that building control staff usually have considerable local knowledge. That may not be the case if the changes envisaged by the Government are introduced. As building control officers are based locally and know their area, they may notice whether a building is being erected without planning permission, or whether it is not being erected in accordance with the permission, and can act swiftly. However, if the Bill becomes law, people may get away with a contemptuous disregard of planning permission. I hope that the Minister would not wish to see that happen. Building control staff also have ready and established access to public records and services, and the Bill may attenuate that link.
The building control officers to whom I spoke told me that in December 1979 the then Secretary of State for the Environment promised that this legislation would be introduced, and that it would be justified by creating efficiency and cost-effectiveness. There is no evidence in this part of the Bill that efficiency will be achieved or cost-effectiveness established. The experienced building control officers, with whom I spent a long time last week discussing their anxieties, do not believe that this part of the Bill, and other parts, would serve the public interest.
As it seems clear that public life would be enhanced if the Minister accepted the Opposition amendments, I urge him to do so. If he does not, I trust that he will reconsider the matter and will ensure that before the Bill becomes law, or as soon as possible thereafter, it is amended to ensure that efficiency is achieved and cost-effectiveness established, and that the decent and proper contribution of building control officers is not thrown away in favour of a system that might be conducive to corruption and that is hardly likely to serve the public interest.

Mr. Gow: I understand the reasons why the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) moved the new clause, and I understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). I hope that I can reassure them now.
It is important that, as a general rule, approved inspectors should not be subject to a conflict of interest in respect of work which they are supervising. I gave an undertaking in Committee to consider whether the Government should introduce an amendment on this matter on Report, and I have considered it carefully. I do not think that there is any difference between the two sides
of the House on the principle involved. However, having looked into the matter again, I am satisfied that the provisions on independence, which need to be spelt out in detail in two important respects, should remain in the regulations.
First, if we consider the requirement for independence, it is not sufficient to say that an approved inspector must not have any direct or indirect financial or professional interest in the work specified. We need to define what we mean by that and to be able to tighten up that definition at a later stage if we find that it is too loose. The House knows the difficulty of amending primary legislation if it is found to be unsatisfactory. For that reason, we think it better to put the detailed requirement in the regulations. I believe that the House will find that its wishes in the matter and its desire to have those wishes enshrined in legislation will be satisfied by what we include in the regulations.
Secondly, we do not intend that the requirement for independence should apply in all cases. As I said in Committee, we think it reasonable to allow for exceptions when only minor works are involved. That is not a new suggestion. It was spelt out in the White Paper of February 1982 that set out the proposals on which the Bill is based. Again, details of the exceptions need to be set out in regulations and we wish to consult further on what those details should be. I shall, of course, take into account fully what has been said in the debate.
Subsection (2) of new clause 7 seeks to ensure that an inspector who concealed an interest and pretended to be independent when he was not would be committing an offence. I accept that intention and, under the Bill and our proposed regulations, that will be the case. Indeed, the House will see that Government amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 42 go further than the new clause and establish the machinery for ensuring that, as well as committing an offence, such people would be disqualified from acting as inspectors. Therefore, I believe, subsection (2) is not necessary.
If an approved inspector makes a declaration that he has no direct or indirect financial or professional interest in the work when that is not the case, he will be committing an offence under clause 40 by giving notice knowing that it contains a false statement. There is no issue of principle between the two sides of the House, but, given the detailed considerations that follow from the simple concept of independence, we believe that it is right that those matters should be dealt with in the regulations.
When we were considering clause 40 in Committee, I said that where an approved inspector is convicted of an offence relating to the professional work on which he is engaged, a period of disqualification ought to follow. I undertook to consider bringing forward on Report an amendment on those lines. We have done that in Government amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 42.
New clause 8 is, to some extent, directed at the same point. I agree with the intention of subsection (1), which states that a person should be appointed as an approved inspector only if he is considered to be a fit person. That brings me to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). It is the Secretary of State's intention that the appointment of approved inspectors and the concept of taking away the monopoly from local authorities and giving the private sector an opportunity to do the work should be matched by an absolute determination to maintain the highest


possible standards. My right hon. Friend, in designating approved inspectors or authorising other bodies to do so, will have that determination uppermost in his mind at all times.
It is one thing to provide for what must happen if a person is convicted of an offence in relation to his professional conduct, but quite another to have to have regard to
"any evidence tending to show that the applicant has … committed any offence involving fraud or other dishonesty"
as subsection (2) of new clause 8 would require. Either a person is convicted or he is not. Furthermore, it is not clear what is meant by subsection (2)(b):
"contravened any provision under this or under any Act with regard to compliance with building regulations."
The Government amendments fulfil the undertaking that I gave in Committee. Amendment No. 33 requires the court to notify the person who gave approval—either the Secretary of State or a designated body — of a conviction. It is essential that that should be the first consequence, since it will be for the approving body to notify local authorities when it withdraws any approval.
It is likely that, when informed of a conviction, the approving body would always wish to withdraw its approval and might even wish to expel a convicted person from membership. Nevertheless, I propose to make regulations to require a designated body to withdraw approval and prevent it from giving further approval for five years after the date of conviction.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 32 and 42 is to provide the necessary powers to make those regulations. The disqualification process will apply not only to approved inspectors under part II, but to approved persons under clause 46.
I hope that, in view of what I have said, the hon. Member for Norwood will seek leave to withdraw the motion.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 9

ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR COURT ORDER FOR POSSESSION

'The following amendments shall be made to the Housing Act 1980—

(a) In section 34—

(i) after subsection (2)(c) shall be inserted—
"(d) on ground 14 unless conditions 3(a) and (c) are satisfied";
(ii) after subsection (3)(b) shall be inserted—
"(c) that the court is satisfied that suitable accommodation will be available for both partners when the order takes effect"; and
(iii) in subsection (4) the words "for a tenant" shall be left out and the words "and, for the purposes of Ground 14 only, includes a sole tenancy of the dwelling house which is the subject of the proceedings." inserted instead.

(b) In Schedule 4, after Ground 13 shall be inserted— "Ground 14
The dwelling house has been occupied by partners and one of the partners has notified the landlord in writing that either—

(a) she or he no longer wishes to live with the other partner as husband and wife; or
(b) the partners have ceased to live together as husband and wife.

For the purpose of this ground, partners means spouses of former spouses or a man and a woman living together as husband and wife.".

(c) In Schedule 4, paragraph 2, after paragraph (f) shall be inserted—
"(g) the location of the accommodation if one of the partners (as defined for the purposes of Schedule 4 ground 14) or a members or members of his/her family has suffered violence or threats of violence from his/her partner or a member of his/her partner's family.".'.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause deals with an important topic that we discussed briefly in Committee and on which the Government expressed their sympathy. I have attempted to clarify some of the issues raised in Committee arid to answer the objections made at that time.
The clause deals with problems relating to the tenancy of a dwelling when a relationship breaks down and a couple separate and need alternative accommodation. It seeks to ensure that, if the parties wish and the local authority agrees, a procedure can be implemented to make alternative accommodation available to both parties.
The problem is a major one. If a marriage breaks up and there are proceedings in the divorce court, there is legal redress if one of the parties becomes homeless. However, if the partners are not prepared to go through divorce proceedings, perhaps because of religious objections, or if they are ineligible to do so because they have not been married long enough, there is no such legal redress. Similarly, if a couple are not married and are cohabiting there is no legal formula to allow a local authority to determine who should retain the tenancy of the dwelling and what should happen to the other partner.
There are special problems with joint tenancies, because it is possible for one partner to apply to the local authority for a determination of tenancy. The other partner might not know or approve of that action.
The new clause attempts to sort out the web of problems and to plug the obvious loopholes in the existing raw. It has a number of advantages over the new clause that I moved in Committee. It is simpler and it does not have the defects that were apparent in the previous new clause. It now includes a specific test of reasonableness in the court and refers to the grounds that must be cited.
8.30 pm
Thirdly, the new clause ensures that three parties are involved in the decision—the partners who are breaking up, the local authority, and a judge in court to decide on the reasonableness or otherwise of the action that the local authority proposes. The new clause is ringed with sufficient safeguards to ensure that the process is not abused.
Fourthly, the new clause also tries to tackle the major problem of the location of the accommodation that should be offered where the partnership has broken up because of violence. Often, a woman has been subjected to violence by the man with whom she is living, and the accommodation offered to her as an alternative must be safe and secure from the possibility of further attack.
The new clause attempts to tackle all these problems. I hope that the Government will recognise the major difficulties associated with relationship breakdowns and the threat of resultant homelessness. When a relationship breaks down, the experience is traumatic enough for the
partners involved. The possibility of homelessness, as at present, on top of the trauma and personal difficulties experienced by the two partners is a major addition to their suffering and pain.
The new clause would enable a local authority to guarantee accommodation to both parties and to ensure that the transfer was smooth and responsible. I hope that the Government will accept the points enshrined in the new clause and my efforts to improve it in an attempt to tackle this serious and difficult problem.

Mr. Simon Hughes: An additional reason for supporting the new clause is that it is easier to deal with this problem under housing law than it is under matrimonial law and orders made in family law courts.
Before I entered the House, I dealt with these very problems as a lawyer. I was concerned about how any court could be persuaded to make any sort of order when there was insufficient evidence of grounds for a potential annulment of marriage. It is very much easier to attach the new clause to housing legislation than to any other legislation.
To save a marriage or a relationship, it is often necessary for the partners to have an opportunity to separate temporarily. As I read the new clause, it does not impose on a local authority an obligation to find something out of non-existent housing stock. One of its preconditions is that suitable accommodation should be available to respond to such a need. It merely requires that a local authority should be satisfied that the partners are no longer willing, or do not wish, to live with each other. This is the most humane, efficient and sensible way of allocating a property to someone who in all probability would otherwise be forced to go into less secure accommodation.
A new clause along these lines introduced in housing legislation could help the many hundreds of people who regularly face this problem and who at present are unable to get help from local authorities.

Sir George Young: As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, we debated a similar new clause in Committee. That was withdrawn because of defective drafting. The hon. Gentleman has done some legislative repairs to his defective structure, and new clause 9 removes the previous drafting defects by requiring a court to be satisfied that it would be reasonable to make an order for possession under new ground 14 and that suitable accommodation would be available for both partners when the order took effect.
While the new clause solves some problems, the Government believe that it creates others that are formidable. The principle behind new clause 9 is much the same as that behind the original new clause debated in Committee. What I then said still holds good. The proposals do not provide a solution to the problems facing people whose relationships break down.
One must be absolutely clear about what is meant by this seemingly innocent new clause. It is about a couple who have either parted or wish to part, one of whom notifies the landlord of that intention under clause 14. The landlord can then go to court and accommodate both partners separately.
This all sounds fairly harmless. However, it does not have to be the tenant who notifies the landlord. It could be his partner. If the tenant no longer wishes to live in the

family home. he or she can simply surrender the tenancy and there would he no need for any new ground for possession. Alternatively, he or she could assign the tenancy to the other partner under section 37 of the Housing Act 1980.
The hon. Gentleman has said that his proposal would make life easier for both partners and that it would protect their rights. That is not so. In simple language the new clause means that, although the tenant wants to stay in the family home, the partner— a man or woman, a joint tenant or indeed a non-tenant—wants the tenant to be evicted. The tenant may have done absolutely nothing wrong as a tenant and none of the 13 grounds for possession in schedule 4 of the Act may apply. It is clear from the new clause that the couple may no longer be living together when one of them so notifies the landlord. It could, therefore, simply be a malicious means of getting the tenant out, with the accompanying loss of the right to buy that dwelling house.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does not the Minister accept that the new clause as now drafted ensures that there are two further stages in the process? The local authority must be satisfied that the proposed action is sensible, and the court must be satisfied that it is reasonable. Given those two safeguards, surely the Minister's point falls.

Sir George Young: I am afraid not. Let me develop the scenario that I have outlined. Instead of the couple occupying one dwelling house, the new clause would require the landlord to find two dwelling houses. Many people would simply regard that as queue jumping.
The Opposition constantly decry the right to buy on the grounds that it reduces a council's housing stock, yet they now seek to introduce a new clause that would enable single people to jump the queue and be rehoused ahead of married couples with children, who often live in extremely difficult accommodation. People will find it odd that two dwelling houses for a cohabiting couple without children would have to be found under the new clause at the expense of others in really needy circumstances.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I accept the Minister's point, but does he accept in return that the giving up of a two or threebedroomed property and the rehousing of the former family unit elsewhere does not necessarily mean queue jumping? Quite often they are rehoused in single-person accommodation which is perhaps less desirable because it is part of a tower block. That would surely release larger accommodation for family use.

Sir George Young: I am not sure of the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but in mine there is enormous pressure on accommodation of all types. Many London boroughs do not have accommodation available for single people. Indeed, in many cases the most acute shortage is in that sector. For a local authority to offer accommodation for one half of a cohabiting couple ahead of others on the waiting list would be a misordering of priorities.
The objections that I outlined in Committee remain unaltered. Basically, an innocent secure tenant can be ousted from the family home by his or her partner. The issues at stake are not ones of housing management and are best dealt with, despite what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, not by housing legislation, but by matrimonial legislation in the
courts, where this question can be settled as part of the whole division of the property on divorce. I accept that matrimonial legislation has little effect, at this stage, on cohabiting couples, but that is a responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. As I think that the hon. Member knows, this is being considered by a committee chaired by Mrs. Justice Booth. I am willing to approach the Law Commission on this matter if that would assuage the fears of some hon. Members.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is clear that often this concerns not just cohabiting couples but couples who are petitioning for an end to their relationship and therefore have not come to a divorce yet. Courts regularly say that they cannot deal with the problem because they have no authority over the local authority. I should be grateful if the Minister could reconsider this because I think that he will find that courts cannot readily deal with the problem unless they are given the jurisdiction of a petition for divorce or annulment by the parties, which often is not the case.

Sir George Young: I shall see that what the hon. Member has said is referred to the committee, which I have just mentioned, chaired by Mrs. Justice Booth. A court looking at the whole context of a relationship is a better forum in which to resolve some of these problems than a chairman of a housing management committee, which is the suggested alternative.
I accept that there are delays in getting to court, and that there are always demands and counter-demands on a court's time, each claiming priority. These are secondary issues that must not obscure the reality that the destination of a family home is best decided under matrimonial legislation, not housing legislation. There are always problems when relationships break down, and I agree entirely with what the hon. Member said on that. However, the issues are complex and I cannot accept the argument for treating housing as an issue separate from the other issues involved in matrimonial or quasi-matrimonial disputes. While many people may suffer hardship under the present arrangements, others can suffer hardship under new clause 9, and I cannot accept that this is the right solution. I invite the House to reject the new clause.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 10

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 42 OF 1980 ACT

'In section 42 of the 1980 Act—

(1) subsection (2) shall be amended by deleting the words in the opinion of the landlord authority concerned,".
(2) subsection (2) shall be amended by adding the words—
"(d) relates to the rent payable under any secure tenancy or to any charge for services or facilities provided by the landlord authority".
(3) subsection (3) shall be omitted.'.—[Mr. Heifer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Heffer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause would amend section 42 of the Housing Act 1980, in that it argues that the consultation of tenants should also take place on rents and services. The Government called section 42, and the Housing Act as a whole, a sort of tenants' charter, and we believe that the right to consultation in the Act is probably the weakest right in it. We are not particularly enamoured of some the other rights, either, but this is particularly weak, because

if one reads the section one sees that the landlord—that is the local authority — will consult the tenants only when it is, in the opinion of the landlord, a matter that will substantially affect them, and when it is appropriate for consultation.
We are of the opinion that rents and services are probably as appropriate, if not more appropriate, as any other aspect of housing management, because they are a matter of housing management. Section 42(2) says:
A matter is one of housing management for the purposes of this Chapter if, in the opinion of the landlord authority concerned, it—

(a) relates to the management, maintenance, improvement or demolition of dwelling-houses let by the authority under secure tenancies, or to the provision of services or amenities in connection with such dwelling-houses; and
(b) represents a new programme of maintenance, improvement or demolition or a change in the practice or policy of the authority; and
(c) is likely substantially to affect its secure tenants as a whole or a group of them.


8.45 pm
We are not saying that these are not important matters, because they are. Subsection (3) says:
A matter is not one of housing management for the purposes of this Chapter in so far as it relates to the rent payable under any secure tenancy or to any charge for services or facilities provided by the landlord authority concerned.
There cannot be anything more important than the rent that somebody pays or the services that they receive. Surely they are very much part of the housing management. Therefore, we would like to correct the Act by putting in this new clause.
The point is that tenants are consumers and as such they have as much right to consumer protection as any consumer in the private sector. If a private tenant is dissatisfied with the rent that he pays, he is able to apply, as we are aware, to the rent officer and to make representations about the standards and levels of service. The council tenants have their rents set by the local authorities and increasingly by Government, as Governments have much say on rents. Since this Government took office, council house rents have risen dramatically. The average gross rent rose by 120 per cent. between 1979 and 1983, while inflation, as measured by the RPI, rose by 57·8 per cent. Although rents have risen substantially, the levels and standards of services 1hat council tenants received in exchange — particularly repair services, which we have discussed — have declined significantly.
Council tenants should be given the right to be consulted about the rent that they pay in exchange for services and about the kinds of services that they receive in exchange for this payment. Rent and service charges should be considered as matters of housing management because of the rapid rise in council house rents since the Government took office, arid because many housing authorities now have housing revenue accounts in surplus. What is happening is that some local authorities are making profits, and these profits are going over, as we are aware, to the general rate revenue. That surplus revenue should not be used in this way. The tenants have some right to say where these profits should go and what services should be provided because they are the ones who are paying the rents.
It is ironic that many of those authorities that are making such transfers most need to plough back surpluses


into improved management and maintenance of their housing stock. A recent survey by Shelter revealed that many authorities that are subsidising the ratepayer out of their housing revenue accounts are placing substantial repairing obligation, on their tenants with the justification that the council cannot afford to take on these items of repair in view of the limited funds in housing revenue accounts.
The London borough of Havering, for example, places repair obligations on its tenants and encourages tenants to carry out repairs that are the landlord's responsibility under its do-it-yourself repair scheme, the basis of which is the Government's right to repair. Last year the borough transferred £1·4 million net from its housing revenue account to its general rate fund, yet 9,300 council dwellings in Havering — 51 per cent. of the council stock—needed repairs costing £3,750 or more each.
The transfer of housing revenue took place without any consultation with the tenants. The surplus transferred to the rate fund was used for environmental improvements of an unspecified nature. Other housing authorities have been far more explicit and I am sure that Conservative Members will be interested to know which they are. Torbay, Bournemouth and Eastbourne councils, for example, have all recently transferred housing revenue to their rate funds specifically to enable them to complete their new civic conference centres. These authorities charge their council tenants higher than average rents. The transfers of revenue were made without consultation with the tenants.
The new clause is important and we hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it. It will strengthen the so-called tenants' charter, which the Government say they introduced in the 1980 Act, and we ask the House to accept the new clause.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In effect, we are talking about the right of tenants to have a say. That falls short of what we should be discussing but I make no complaint that the new clause that I tabled was not selected for debate. Tenants would often like to have a direct say in the management, refurbishment and rebuilding that has an effect on their estates or on local authority dwellings in the borough as a whole. The new clause falls short of that but we shall be moving a small step in the right direction if it is accepted.
I hope that the Government will accept that the revenue that a local authority wishes to raise and the rents and rates that it proposes to charge are matters that concern tenants. As the acceptance of the new clause would require an objective assessment, we would see it as an improvement on the present position. At present there is no possibility of testing a local authority's claim that its proposal will not have an effect on the management of an estate. The tenant, effectively, has no means of enforcing his rights. By the removal of the words
"in the opinion of the authority concerned"
we would at least give the tenant the same status as the local authority in being able to establish, if the authority was not co-operative, the right to be consulted, even if not a right to further entitlements, which the Bill has not provided. I hope that the Minister will accept that an objective judgment would be better than the subjective judgment of many rather defensive local authorities.

Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) implied that at present

tenants need not be consulted on the refurbishment of their estates. In fact, they have to be consulted under section 42 of the 1980 Act. That section states that if, in the opinion of a local authority, a matter concerns housing management and is related to the management, maintenance, improvement or demolition of dwelling houses and represents a new programme of maintenance, improvement or demolition, the tenants have to be consulted.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) exhumed some amendments that we considered during the passage of what was the 1980 Bill, and in part when the present Bill was in Committee. I was interested to hear whether any new arguments had been found for accepting the new clause in the intervening period, and especially whether any examples had been found of local authorities failing to consult. The hon. Gentleman produced no such examples. Before he talks about Eastbourne he would do well to ascertain whether there are Labour-controlled authorities that are transferring funds from the housing revenue account to the general rate fund. I think that he will find that one or two Labour authorities are doing that.
I turn to the first limb of the new clause. A housing matter, as defined by section 42(2) of the 1980 Act, is such if, in the opinion of the landlord, three conditions are satisfied. The conditions are set out in the Act, which also specifies certain matters that do not concern housing management. The Act also goes on to specify certain matters that are not housing management.
It is important to keep in mind that section 42 is tied to section 43, which deals with consultation with secure tenants. The thrust of section 43 is that tenants who are likely to be substantially affected by a matter of housing management are consulted before new programmes or changes are introduced. In these circumstances, no one can be better placed than the landlord to judge whether a matter meets the conditions required by section 42. It would, therefore, be wrong to imply that another body should be called upon for an informed opinion.
There is little evidence to suggest that individual landlords' definitions of housing management are causing difficulty or that their interpretations are in contravention of the spirit of section 42. I have no reason to believe that authorities do not act reasonably and responsibly. There seems no doubt that removal of the qualifying phrase as is suggested in the new clause would give unnecessary scope for the frustration of rational proposals by frivolous quibbles. In any case, as matters now stand, tenants can challenge in the courts decisions by their landlords on the ground that their opinions are such that no reasonable landlord could have reached them.
I am not convinced that the operation of sections 42 and 43 of the 1980 Act would be improved by the omission of reference to the landlords' opinion. The new clause could add appreciably to the work of the courts, with attendant delays in implementing proposals. No new evidence has been brought to the House to justify the case for the new clause.
I turn now to the second limb of new clause 10, which requires landlords to consult secure tenants about rents and charges for services or facilities they provide. We considered this matter very carefully when we received many representations following our consultation paper, and during the passage of the Housing Bill in 1980.
I must first say that the subsection is defective as it does not specify whether (d) is additional to (a) to (c) of section


42(2) or an alternative. If the latter is the intention. I am sure local authorities would regard the extra burden of consulting tenants on any change to an individual rent or a charge quite catastrophic.
In addition, the new subsection would sit most unhappily alongside section 40(7), which provides that a variation in rent or payments for services and facilities is not a variation in the terms of a secure tenancy on which the landlord has to serve a preliminary notice in addition to the notice of increase on the tenant.
But, in any case, I am quite certain that local authorities would be as overwhelmingly against any requirement to consult over rent levels as they were when the proposal was first tabled in 1980. That reaction was spread across all parties. The level of rents is inevitably closely bound up with a local authority's budget as a whole. It is of concern to all ratepayers, not just secure tenants, and local people's views should properly be considered in that wider context. However, the new clause goes further. It deals not only with general rent levels but with changes up or down to rents and charges on an individual basis. Such a duty would be extremely onerous. It would delay getting new rents fixed, add to administrative costs and achieve little or nothing, because the rents would still have to go up and the outcome would be nothing more than frustration and delay for all concerned. Similar considerations apply to consultations about charges for services and facilities.
To force landlords to consult tenants about rents and services might discredit the whole concept of consultation. That would be a pity, because there is much to be gained from this process, when both sides can work together for their mutual benefit and tenants can have a real influence on what is eventually decided.
In our view, therefore, the new clause is unnecessary and unwarranted, and I do not think that the case for it has been made. I ask the House to reject it.

Question put and negatived.

New clause 11

CONSTRUCTION MANUALS FOR DWELLINGS

'Building regulations may provide that the person responsible for the construction of any new dwelling shall provide for the occupier a manual which will contain the plans of the dwelling, its basic construction method, the materials used in its load-bearing walls. the route of services providing gas, water, electricity and like facilities, and provide for the insertion of details of all structural changes and improvements, and require the deposit of a copy of the manual with the local authority in whose area the dwelling is situated.'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9 pm

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The proposition is almost self-evident—to make it an obligation on the builder to provide the purchaser of the new house with a manual which describes the dwelling. When one buys a new car one gets a manual, giving a wiring diagram, saying how many litres of petrol the vehicle holds, and telling the purchaser a few things about the servicing. If one buys a new house it is a different matter. I have had the experience of trying to put up shelves, only to find that there was a dry lining and that I did not have the right rawlplugs. As a result the shelves dropped off. If one starts to lay a carpet, one finds a smell of gas as one pierces a pipe. When one puts up the

Christmas decorations, all the lights go out as one pierces the lighting system. When there is a burst, one has no idea where the internal stopcock is. If one wants to do certain alterations, one suddenly runs into a timber frame that has been shielded by breeze blocks on one side and by traditional bricks on the other side. So it goes on.
It is ludicrous that when one makes the biggest purchase of one's life, buying a brand-new home, one has no plans or specifications or manual to describe the nature of the construction, the position of the services, the ability to take safety requirements, arid so forth. On the other hand, when one buys a car—I accept that it is not a statutory requirement, and it is no guarantee that it will work—one gets a manual that will say why the car is not working.
Thus, in my opinion, there is every justification for making it a requirement in the regulations to give the purchaser of a new dwelling a manual which describes the building, what it is made of, where the load-bearing walls are, what materials have been used in the construction, and where the services are situated. After all, plans have to he deposited with the building inspector, and a final certificate has to be lodged with the local authority. All we are asking is that building regulations should provide that a manual be handed to the purchaser, and a copy of it deposited with the local authority which will be available to future purchasers. What a brilliant idea it is, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: May I briefly intervene to support what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has said?
I have much sympathy with the purpose of new clause 11, particularly with what it says about supply ing the occupier of the dwelling with a manual. It is extremely important. Incidentally, in knocking Christmas cards into the studded partition, I doubt whether any interpretation of the drawings would enable the hon. Gentleman accurately to pinpoint where the studding of the framework was. However, it would clearly be of inestimable help to an occupier to know the basic structure of the dwelling, the position of the utility services. and so on.
I am less sure whether there should be a requirement that a copy of the manual should be lodged with the local authority. I do not want to make too much of this, but I should have thought that the drawings that they are bound to receive would give them the information that they would need in any eventuality.
I shall listen with an open mind to what my hon. Friend says. My only doubt is whether it should be a statutory, requirement or whether it should necessarily be laid down in the building regulations. As I say, I shall keep an open mind on the matter, but it should certainly be established practice. Whatever the House decides on new clause 11, I very much hope that the professional bodies and organisations concerned with house building will heed the wise comments of the hon. Member for Norwood. 1 think. in particular, of the National Housing Building Council, the House Builders Federation, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. They should encourage their members, as a matter of voluntary practice, to make quite sure that the occupiers of all dwellings receive a manual, which will be of great benefit to the people who occupy these dwellings.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Government have a great deal of sympathy with the idea behind the clause. It is helpful


to a house buyer, especially someone buying a new home for the first time, to be given information about the nature of his purchase, about the structure, about the aspects where he needs to take special care in maintenance and about those of which he needs to be careful if he considers alterations or extensions.
However, the Government have serious doubts about whether these are appropriate matters for building regulations—in other words, for the criminal law. We have strong reservations about the burden that the proposal would impose on local authorities as depositories for the proposed documents. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) shares my doubts about the involvement of the local authority.
Presumably the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) also envisages the local council keeping the manuals up to date. There is a problem of how detailed the manuals should be. Would they be changed whenever a new electrical socket or a new tap for a garden hose was added? The House will see the detail in which it might be asking local authorities to involve themselves. If it were not strictly correct in all its details, especially in such matters as the siting of services, a manual of the type envisaged could create more hazards than it prevented.
A misleadingly authoritative document formally deposited with the local council could create a false sense of security which might encourage an inexperienced do-it-yourself householder or a tradesman in a hurry to neglect some of the safety checks on the positioning of wiring and pipes which he would otherwise have to carry out in the absence of such an apparently comprehensive manual.
We are satisfied that it would be good practice for house builders to give the new owner all the necessary details about the construction and the running of his home. I understand that the National Housebuilding Council, whose scheme already covers virtually all houses built for private sale, is preparing a revised edition of its owner's manual to be provided by the builder for each new purchaser. This manual will allow for information covering the type of construction, the positions of mains services and any other relevant features.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is much better to proceed by co-operation than by coercion. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet that it is desirable that good practice should be known to all those involved with house building and house sale.
It is most desirable to avoid putting an unnecessary burden on local authorities by involving them in matters which are essentially between house builders and their customers. On that ground I invite the hon. Member for Norwood to withdraw the motion.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

EXTENSION TO CERTAIN CASES WHERE LANDLORD DOES NOT OWN FREEHOLD

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 109, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—

'(4) The amendments made by this section and Schedule 1 to this Act shall not apply where the landlord's notice under section 5(1) of the 1980 Act was served before the commencement date.'
This is a technical amendment which will be welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Its purpose is to make it clear that the extension of the right to buy to leasehold property by clause 1 and schedule 1 will apply only to fresh applications made after commencement or to those where, on commencement, the landlord has not responded to the tenant's right-to-buy application.
The amendment will make it clear that previously rejected applications cannot be resurrected. Tenants who have previously been refused the right to buy on the ground that the landlord does not own the freehold will have to reapply. It is a commonsense provision which I ask the House to accept.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

EXTENSION TO CERTAIN CASES WHERE DWELLING-HOUSE IS ADAPTED FOR USE BY DISABLED PERSONS

Amendments made: No. 93, in page 2, line 11, leave out
'At the end of paragraph 3'
and insert
'For paragraphs 1 and 2'.
No. 94, in page 2, line 13, after 'arise)', insert
'there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"1.—(1) The dwelling-house forms part of, or is within the
curtilage of, a building to which sub-paragraph (2) below applies and—

(a) the tenant or his predecessor in title was in the employment of the landlord or of a body specified in sub-paragraph (3) below; and
(b) the dwelling-house was let to the tenant or predecessor in consequence of that employment.

(2) This sub-paragraph applies to a building if the building or so much of it as is held by the landlord—

(a) is held mainly for purposes other than housing purposes; and
(b) consists mainly of accommodation other than housing accommodation;

and in this sub-paragraph "housing purposes" means the purposes for which dwelling-houses are held by local authorities under Part V of the 1957 Act or purposes corresponding to those purposes.
(3) The bodies referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above are—

(a) a local authority;
(b) a development corporation;
(c) an urban development corporation within the meaning of Part XVI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980;
(d) the Commission for the New Towns;
(e) a county council; or
(f) the Development Board for Rural Wales."

(1A) At the end of paragraph 3 of that Part of that Schedule'.

No. 95, in page 2, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert

'(2) Paragraph 5 of that Schedule shall be omitted and any determination made under that paragraph shall cease to have effect.
(3) The amendment made by subsection (1) above and the provision made by subsection (2) above shall not apply where the tenants' claim to exercise the right to buy was made before the commencement date; and the amendment made by subsection (1A) above shall not apply where the landlord's notice under section 5(1) of the 1980 Act was served before that date. '—[Mr. Gow.]

Clause 4

REPAYMENT OF DISCOUNT ON EARLY DISPOSAL

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 35, at end insert
'or
(c) a declaration of trust which alters or increases the number of persons entitled to beneficial ownership of the dwellinghouse and confers an interest on a person who is neither a spouse nor a person entitled to share in the right to buy.'.>
In Committee I put a conundrum to the Minister, as to whether a declaration of trust amounted to a disposal. He did not give a satisfactory answer then, and I ask him to give one now.

Mr. Gow: As drafted, clause 4 will ensure that a disposal to the tenant's spouse or former spouse, or to a member of his family who has been living with him for 12 months prior to the disposal, will not give rise to an obligation to repay discount. There is no problem whether the transaction is effected by a conveyance of the legal estate or by a declaration of trust.
The hon. Gentleman and I had an interesting debate on this point in Committee. I explained to the Committee that the law on this subject was not beyond dispute —something that is not unknown, as both the hon. Gentleman and I know. However. I am satisfied that the clause, as drafted, is satisfactory.
Amendment negatived.

Clause 5

NOTICE TO COMPLETE BY LANDLORD

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 39, leave out 'nine' and insert 'four'.
In section 16 of the 1980 Act there are various periods of three months during which a tenant has the right to claim a mortgage or deferred purchase. There is also a three-month period for local authorities giving notice. The Government propose to extend the three-month period to nine months. That is an extraordinarily long time for giving completion notices and so on, and bears no relationship to arrangements that might exist in private sector conveyancing.
The clause gives the tenant an incentive to go for as long a delay as possible. That, in turn, involves a cost to the public purse. For example, if one could couple two nine-month notices under section 16 of the original Act, it might well delay the time between service of a notice and completion by 18 months, or possibly even two years. During that time the value of the property could rise. There is also a loss to the public purse. It should be borne in mind that in the forthcoming rate support grant settlement the Government are cutting the real expenditure of local authorities by about 3 per cent. and the real expenditure of boroughs such as Lambeth by about 9 per cent. The amount of money available to local authorities means that there is a lot of pressure on them. It seems wrong that in a Bill that involves the right to buy and massive discounts there should be a machinery of delay which can work only to the disadvantage of the local authority and all its ratepayers. There is no case for putting a premium on delay, and that is why I commend the amendment.

Sir George Young: As the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) knows, the present minimum period of notice

is three months. That is specified in section 16(3) of the 1980 Act. However, we have found that there are many cases in which that does not give the tenant enough time. We have also found that there are many cases in which the tenant is done out of his right to buy by an unreasonable use of the time limit. Not all landlords have been reasonable in their use of the present provision That is why, under clause 5(3), we have decided to increase the three-month minimum to nine months.
The Opposition appear to agree that the present minimum time of three months is insufficient. They have simply suggested four months. There is a difference of opinion as to how long the tenant should have before completion procedures may be started against him. It seems to me that nine months is an entirely realistic timescale when we contemplate the importance of the decisions that the tenant has before him. Both he and his solicitor will have to consider all the terms of the transaction, including the reasonableness of any service or restrictive covenants. Mortgage finance will almost certainly need to be arranged. Eventually, the tenant must make up his mind whether to proceed—possibly one of the most significant commitments that he will ever enter into.
9.15 pm
Many landlords have taken in excess of two years to complete sales, yet we are being asked to give the landlord power to impose strict time limits on the tenant. The Bill is about the rights of tenants to purchase their homes. That is the principle underlying the provision of clause 5. The extension of the minimum period to nine months and the other provisions of the clause are designed to ensure that the tenant has sufficient time to enter the home ownership market fully aware of all the relevant facts and without being forced to take hasty decisions. Why put pressure on him? There is no loss to the landlord in what we are proposing; indeed, clause 5 as it stands will be of real help to landlords in enabling them to deal with "dead" applications after the expiry of the time limits. That is real advance on the present provisions. We spent some time on that in Committee.
It comes down simply to a question as to by how much the minimum period should be extended. We prefer to give the tenant the benefit of the doubt and extend it to nine months. For those reasons I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7

DWELLING-HOUSES IN NATIONAL PARKS AND AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY ETC.

Amendments made: No. 106, in page 7, line 4(1, after 'below', insert 'unless'.

No. 107, in page 7, line 42, after 'Act', insert
'unless in relation to that or a previous such disposal'.
No. 81, in page 8, line 4, at end insert
'on the assumption that any liability under the convenant required by section 8(1) of this Act would be discharged by the tenant (or his successor)'.
No. 82, in page 8, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert—
'(5) For subsection (7) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(7) If the landlord accepts the offer mentioned in subsection (4) above, the consideration shall be reduced by such amount (if any) as, on a relevant


disposal made at the time of the offer was made and not falling within subsection (3A) of section 8 of this Act, would fall to be paid under the convenant required by subsection (1) of that section; and no payment shall be required in pursuance of that convenant.".'.—[Sir George Young.]

Clause 13

NOTICE OF INITIAL CONTRIBUTION ETC

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 14, line 24 leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
'(c) a copy of the lease the landlord proposes to grant'.
It is better to give the tenant a copy of the proposed lease than a description of the proposed lease. If the local authority wants to give a description to go with the lease, that is fine, but there can be a difference of opinion between a description of the document that the tenant is to have and the document. It would be quicker and more certain to provide the tenant with the draft lease giving a response to his initial notice to purchase.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) made a suggestion similar to that made in amendment No. 7 in Standing Committee during discussion of what is now clause 13 of the Bill. He did not press the matter then, possibly because shortly after he spoke the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) cut the ground from under his feet by making a plea that documents passing between landlords and tenants should be in clear and simple language.
The provisions of clause 13, like those in section 10 of the 1980 Act on which they are modelled, are intended to ensure that the tenant has all the information he needs before deciding whether to proceed with the purchase of his home. The only point between us is whether that purpose is best served by requiring the landlord to send the tenant a full draft lease or whether the precise means of informing the tenants of the provisions to be included in the lease should be left to the discretion of the landlord. At some stage before completion, the tenant must have the full draft lease and he would be well advised to get professional help in assessing it. We have made that clear in our advice to tenants exercising the right to buy.
The point made in Committee by the hon. Member for Walton is one that deserves to be taken seriously. Legal documents can often seem quite impenetrable, even to those of us who deal with them every day. They involve use of technical jargon that is difficult to understand if one is unfamiliar with it. Most tenants will not be familiar with it. For the first time in their lives they will be entering the housing market and, perhaps, even dealing with solicitors for the first time. No doubt many landlords will in practice meet the requirements of clause 13 by sending the tenant a draft lease. Others, however, may wish to be more helpful to the tenant and to summarise in layman's language the basic provisions of the lease. I know that some landlords adopt that practice when sending out section 10 offers under the 1980 Act. I can see the case for such an approach. It is arguably more help to the tenant than the full draft document at such a stage. I do not accept the argument that to proceed in this way need lead to delay. The earlier the tenant fully understands what he is letting himself in for, the less is the chance of last-minute snags and hold-ups.

Clause 13, as drafted, will give landlords the same flexibility in this matter as they already have under section 10 of the 1980 Act. I believe that it is right to leave the form of the documentation to their discretion. I therefore ask the House to reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 17

RECOVERY OF SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 18, line 27, leave out 'a house' and insert
'not a flat within the meaning of Schedule 19 to the 1980 Act'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take Government amendments Nos. 9 to 15, 111, 96, 48, 49, 112 and 74.

Mr. Roberts: This group of technical amendments need not detain us long.
Clauses 17 to 20 of the Bill apply to both right-to-buy and voluntary sales, but the basic provisions governing both types of sale are contained in different legislation. For right-to-buy sales it is the Housing Act 1980, for voluntary sales other legislation applies—notably the Housing Act 1957. The object of this group of amendments is to achieve consistency in the application of clauses 17 to 20, given the different statutory provisions that apply to the sales.
The amendments deal with five specific issues, which I shall run through briefly. First, amendment No. 8 ensures that there is no overlap between schedule 19 to the 1980 Act and schedule 4 to the Bill—both of which deal with service charges. Schedule 19 applies if the dwelling-house is a flat and schedule 4 to all other dwelling-houses.
Secondly, amendment No. 13 extends the definition of dwelling-house to include a house within the meaning of the Housing Act 1957. Right-to-buy sales are always sales to sitting tenants; voluntary sales may be of property where there is no sitting tenant. The definition of "house" in the 1957 Act is wide enough to deal with that position.
Thirdly, under the right-to-buy rules landlords may not assign leases, but such assignments are possible in voluntary sales. It is desirable therefore that the provisions of clauses 17 to 21 should, for the sake of completeness, cover such assignments also. That is the objective of amendment No. 9 and the new definition of conveyance in amendment No. 13.
Fourthly, clause 17(3)(c) relates the provisions only to the sale of dwelling-houses held by county councils under their reserve powers. But there is no reason why sales of dwelling-houses held by county councils for other purposes should be excluded, or why purchasers of those dwellings should be excluded from this group of clauses. We believe that that limitation should therefore be removed. Furthermore, since housing co-operatives are not landlords in their own right, and do not dispose of dwellings, there is no reason for them to be included in the list. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 achieve that effect.
Fifthly, clause 18 applies the new vesting arrangements to voluntary sales where there is a pre-emption covenant of the kind mentioned in section 104(6)(b) of the 1957 Act. But the vesting arrangements may also be appropriate where, in voluntary sales, a lease precludes its assignment, or the granting of a sub-lease, under the powers contained in section 104(6)(c). since it is normal in such cases—for example, local authority leasehold schemes for the elderly—for lessees to have a right of surrender to the


local authority. The end result is, in effect, the equivalent of a right of pre-emption. Clause 18 should, therefore, also contain a reference to section 104(6)(c) of the 1957 Act. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
Amendments Nos. 10, 48, 49 and 74 are consequential. Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 remove what is now subsection (8) of clause 19 to schedule 10 and are drafting amendments, as is amendment No. 96 to clause 21.
As I said earlier, these are technical amendments necessary to achieve consistency. I hope that the House will endorse them.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 9, in page 18, line 28, after 'grant', insert
'or, in the case of a conveyance which is an assignment of a lease, the lease'.
No. 10, in page 18, line 37, at end insert
'; and in that Schedule expressions used in this section have the same meanings as in this section'.
No. 11, in page 18, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 19 and insert
'the vendor or lessor is one of the following bodies,namely—'.
No. 12, in page 19, line 9, at end insert—
'(aa) a county council;'.
No. 13, in page 19, leave out lines 19 to 26 and insert—
'(4) In this section and sections 18 and 19 below—
"conveyance" means a conveyance of the freehold or an assignment of a long lease;
"dwelling-house" includes a house within the meaning of the 1957 Act;
"grant" means a grant of a long lease;
"long lease" means a lease creating a long tenancy within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the 1980 Act. '.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts J.

Clause 18

VESTING OF MORTGAGE DWELLING-HOUSE IN LOCAL AUTHORITY ETC.

Amendments made:No. 14, in page 19, line 39 after '(b)', insert '(c)'.

No. 15, in page 20, line 13 after '(b), insert 'or (c)'. —[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 19

LOCAL AUTHORITY AND HOUSING CORPORATION INDEMNITIES FOR CERTAIN MORTGAGEES

Amendment made: No. III, in page 21, leave out limes 36 to 39.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 21

PROVISION IN RELATION TO VOLUNTARY DISPOSALS CORRESPONDING TO THAT MADE BY SECTIONS 4 AND 7

Amendment made: No. 96, in page 22, line 14, leave out 'sections 104B and 104C' and insert 'section 104B (repayment of discount on early disposal) and section 104C (houses in National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty etc.)'.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 22

GROUNDS AND ORDERS FOR POSSESSION AFTER A SUCCESSION

Amendments made: No. 97, in page 22, line 18, leave out 'After subsection (3)' and insert 'In subsection (2)'.

No. 98, in page 22, line 19, after 'possession' insert 'for the words "grounds 10 to 13" there shall be substituted the words
"grounds 9A to 13" and in Part I of Schedule 4 to that Act (grounds on which court may order possession) after ground 9 there shall be inserted the following ground—
"Ground 9A
9A. The dwelling-house forms part of, or is within the curtilage of, a building to which sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act applies, and—

(a) the landlord reasonably requires the dwelling-house for occupation as a residence for some person engaged in the employment of the landlord or of a body specified in sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph or with whom, conditional on housing being provided, a contract for such employment has been entered into;
(b) the tenant or his predecessor in title was in the employment of the landlord or of a body so specified, and the dwelling-house was let to the tenant or predecessor in consequence of that employment and the tenant or predecessor has ceased to be in that employment."

(2) After subsection (3) of that section'.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 25

Heating charges

Mr. Heffer: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 25, line 12, leave out clause 25.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 27, in page 25, line 38, at end insert—
'(lA) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, heating costs are to be taken into account only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred and only if the supply of heat or work done in connection with the supply of heat are of a reasonable standard. '.

Mr. Heffer: The original idea was to have a lengthy debate on heating charges but that is not possible. I shall dispose of my notes and ask two questions. May we have an assurance that some pooling of heating charges will be allowed under the regulations? Will the regulations still


allow a degree of subsidy of heating costs from the general rate fund or elsewhere? It is clear that without those assurances some people will continue to pay tremendously high heating costs. Something should be done to assist them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister deal with my amendment? The clause allows the Minister to specify which proportion of the heating costs pertaining, for example, to a block shall be attributable to any particular tenant. In large tower blocks heating is often ineffective and very expensive. Constituents complain that they pay as much as £150 a quarter for no apparent heat. The higher the accommodation the colder it is because the less the heating works. Many thousands of people are affected.
Will the Minister ensure that under the regulations tenants whose heating systems are ineffective and are not value for money will pay only a proportion of a reasonable cost? Tenants should not have to pay for heating that exists only in theory. Tenants have to make high payments for little heat and they may freeze, if not to death, to the point of discomfort.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Clause 25 proposes to give secure tenants two new rights. First, it gives them the right to information about the costs of their heating. Secondly, it gives them the right to pay no more than a reasonable proportion of the costs.
District and communal heating charges are a source of complaint from secure tenants. Several hundred thousand tenants are on district heating systems and they receive little or no information about how the charges are made up or about the cost of producing the heat. There is no direct legal action that they can take if they want to challenge a heating authority.
The clause proposes to give secure tenants of local authorities and new town development corporations in England and Wales two new rights to ensure fair play between them and their landlords.
Under the first of the new rights heating authorities will be required by regulation to adopt methods for determining heating charges so that secure tenants supplied with heat from district and communal heating systems have the right to pay no more than their reasonable proportion of heating costs. There is no intention, nor is there power, for the Secretary of State to prescribe the methods.
Under the second new right regulations give secure tenants the right to require the authority supplying their heat information, in the form to be prescribed, about the costs of providing heat from generating stations or other installations for producing heat. Regulations will also give tenants the right to information about heating charges and require authorities to provide facilities for inspecting the accounts and for taking copies of extracts. Both these new rights—that the charges are apportioned reasonably and the right to information—would be brought about by regulations to be made by the Secretary of State, and we shall shortly consult the landlords' associations and other bodies as to the precise content of the regulations about information and about the timing of the introduction.
The Government can scarcely be unsympathetic to the principle behind amendment No. 27, which echoes schedule 19 of the 1980 Act. It would give tenants receiving heating through a communal or district heating

system a right of challenge in the courts as to the reasonableness of the charge and the standard of service. The court could fix charges, as it can under schedule 19.
9.30 pm
The difficulty about applying such a regime to the public rented sector is twofold. First, there are the varying legal provisions under which heat is supplied. Some authorities supply heat under part V of the Housing Act 1957, others under sections 11 and 12 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, and others under local legislation. Depending on the relevant statute in each case, authorities have varying degrees of discretion in their charging policies.
Secondly, there is the interface between heating charges and local authority rents. If a court moved to reduce the heating charge of a particular tenant, the effect on the tenant and others could vary enormously. For example, the tenant's charge could be reduced and his rent put up by the same amount, or his charge could be reduced and someone else's charge put up to balance the books, or charges in general could go down and the rate fund contribution go up.
It is difficult to envisage the courts trying to fix local authority rents in individual cases, notwithstanding the general provisions in section 111 of the 1957 Act. Reluctantly, we are also forced to conclude that it is impracticable to let them fix individual local authority heating charges. We think that what can in practical terms be exposed to challenge is the fairness of the apportionment method. We accept that this is a lesser right but, taken with the information provision, it is a worthwhile first step. There has been some reluctance to give tenants full information and expose these matters to local debate. Our proposals will ensure this without involving the courts in setting individual charges.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If information obtained by tenants reveals that there are substantial numbers of tenants who are paying for nothing, can the Minister give an undertaking that his Department will consider the matter again so that there will, if necessary, be more effective powers to support the tenants' rights in this area?

Mr. Roberts: I have said what there is to be said. We discussed the subject in Committee, and I have no more to add.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 32

APPROVED INSPECTORS

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 31, line 44, leave out from 'State' to end of line 3 on page 32.
There are two ways of appointing an inspector in the Bill. He can be appointed by the Minister or by an approved body. It is quite wrong that the appointment of an inspector may he subcontracted to some other organisation. The Minister may well wish to follow the recommendation of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the National House Building Council or some other professional body, but the buck ought to stop with the Minister. The duty of appointment and supervision should be a Government one, not a private one. Once another body is allowed to appoint a building inspector, State and parliamentary control will be lost, and that


would be wrong. I hope that the Government will accept our proposition, discussed in Committee, that the sole power of appointment should rest with central Government.

Sir George Young: The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that there might be a weakening of state control is not likely to commend itself to the Government.
Amendment No. 30 would take away the power of the Secretary of State to designate bodies to approve inspectors so that he would have to consider every application himself. We strongly oppose such a proposal. We have recently held a meeting with the main professional institutions whose members have a claim to be approved as inspectors. Their response has been helpful and constructive, showing considerable agreement on the main principles of approval—that is to say, professional qualification and relevant practical experience, coupled with some specific demonstration of knowledge of the building regulations.
Discussions among the institutions and with my Department are continuing and we accept the need to establish agreed criteria. I am in no doubt that the institutions, which are highly respected professional bodies, are best placed to determine the competence of their members. They know what qualifications and experience their members have and thus what additional tests might be applied to assess the competence of those who wish to become approved as inspectors. It would make no sense at all for the Secretary of State to have to get involved in approving individual inspectors when others already have the necessary expertise to do that.
However, I can give the House my assurance that we shall not designate any body to approve inspectors unless we are satisfied that they will adopt proper procedures for vetting the competence of each candidate for approval.
On the basis of that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. John Fraser: Our judges, police constables and magistrates are not privately appointed. We have come pretty close to private enterprise appointing peers a couple of times, but there are some areas in which there should be exclusive state control, and quite properly so. I know that the House wants to make progress. I still believe strongly in the amendment that I have moved, but I shall press it no further. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 32, in page 32, line 17 at end insert—
'(bb) contain provision precluding the giving of, or requiring the withdrawal of, any such approval as is so referred to in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations;'.—[Sir George Young.]

Clause 40

OFFENCES

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 40, line 11 at end insert—

'(3) Where an approved inspector or person approved for the purposes of section 64(2C) of the 1936 Act is convicted of an offence under this section, the court by or before which he is convicted shall, within one month of the date of conviction, forward a certificate of the conviction to the person by whom the approval was given.'.—[Sir George Young.]

Clause 44

APPROVAL OF DOCUMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF BUILDING REGULATIONS

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 42, line 36, leave out from 'State' to second "the' in line 43 and insert—
'may approve and issue any document (whether or not prepared by him), if in his opinion;'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 35, in page 42, line 43, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State may designate a body to prepare, in consultation with such persons as they think fit or he directs them to consult, any documents or class of documents to be approved and issued by him under subsection (1) above.'.
No. 36, in page 42, line 43, at end insert—
'(1A) No document shall be approved under this section if ii has been prepared by an Approved Inspector, its servants or agents under section 32'.
No. 37, in page 43, line 9, leave out
'or, as the case may be, the body giving the approval'.
No. 38, in page 43, line 16, leave out from 'State' to 'may' in line 17.
No. 39, in page 43, line 19, leave out from 'document' to 'and' in line 20 and insert—
'which he has issued for the purposes of this section, or direct its revision by the body which prepared it for his approval (as the case may be)'.
No. 40, in page 43, line 27, leave out from 'State' to second 'approval' in line 28 and insert—
'may withdraw his'.
No. 41, in page 44, line 2, at end insert—
'and the order shall specify the document or class of documents which the body designated is to prepare for the Secretary of State's approval under subsection (1) above'.

Mr. Fraser: This group of amendments ensures that approved documents which will provide evidence of compliance with building regulations are not approved by private building inspectors so as to maintain the independence and integrity of private inspectors. The Opposition believe that approval of documents should be the duty of the Government. A constitutional principle is involved. If the amendments are not accepted, bodies outside Parliament will be given power to legislate.
The National House Building Council believes that it will be given two functions by the Bill. According to its head of legal services, it believes that it will be appointed as building inspectors and that its handbook,
"in a suitably amended form could also be an Approved Document so that all the Regulations relating to low rise housing would be in one simple document."
In other words, the council believes that it will be both inspector and legislator. It might be perfectly proper for the council's manual to be incorporated as an approved document, but the act of such approval ought not to he the act of a private body which is also a private inspector. It should be the Minister's responsibility. Not much, apart from the principle that control of legislation must remain with the Minister, if not with the House, is involved.

Mr. Gow: These proposals have been the subject of intensive consultation and they have been widely welcomed. A key element in our proposals is that the regulations, which will remain a statutory instrument and subject to parliamentary approval, will be supported by


documents which give practical guidance on technicalities of design and building methods. As the House knows, they are approved documents under clause 44.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) referred to the method of granting approval. The Bill envisages that documents from a variety of sources might be approved. There will be two routes to approval—either there will be direct approval by my right hon. Friend or there will be approval by a body which has been designated for that purpose by statutory instrument.
I repeat what I said in Committee. We envisage including only two bodies in the designation order, the British Standards Institution and the British Board of Agrement, both of which are authoritative and fully independent bodies supported by successive Governments over a long period. I hope that that assurance will allay the hon. Gentleman's anxiety.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 46

CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING REGULATIONS

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 46, line 16, at end insert—

'(bb) contain provision precluding the giving of, or requiring the withdrawal of, any such approval as is so referred to in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations;'.—[Sir George Young.]

Clause 48

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO BUILDING REGULATIONS

Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 47, line 10, at end insert—
'(1A) The following provisions of the 1974 Act, namely—

(a) subsection (5) of section 61 (which provides for the repeal of section 71 of the 1936 Act but has not been brought into force); and
(b) subsections (6) and (7) of section 63 (which make provision consequential on that repeal),
shall cease to have effect.'

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 73 and 75 to 79.

Sir George Young: The purpose of the amendments is simply to remove from the statute book certain provisions in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which have not been brought into operation and are no longer considered necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Mr. Eric S. Helfer: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 48, line 28, at end insert—
'(2A) Sections 1 to 14 of this Act shall come into force for such local authority areas and on such days as the Secretary of State may by order by statutory instrument appoint when he certifies that in each such area the number of persons seeking to become secure tenants is not substantially greater than the number of dwelling-houses available for letting as secure tenancies.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 46, in page 48. line 29, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (2A)'.
No. 47, in page 48, line 30, leave out 'two' and insert 'twelve'.

Mr. Heffer: These important amendments provide that clauses 1 to 14 should come into force in a local authority area only when the Secretary of State has certified that no one in the area requires rented property. Despite the claims of Government supporters, the Labour party has never opposed home ownership, but we recognise that thousands of people have no homes and cannot afford to buy so that their best hope of securing accommodation is through the local authority.
As every hon. Member from such an area knows, there are thousands of people on council waiting lists in the large cities. Many people live in overcrowded conditions. Young people have to remain in accommodation with mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles and so on. Families are split up with one child in one place and another somewhere else. Thousands of people live in unfit homes and desperately need decent accommodation. [HON MEMBERS; "Rent-a-mob has arrived".] I appreciate my hon. Friends' support and I intend to ask them to vote for the amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I can throw my notes away now.
The amendment boils down to this. No local authority must be allowed to sell its homes until there is no longer anyone on its waiting list. Amendment No. 47 seeks to extend from two months to 12 months the period after which the Act comes into operation. I ask my hon. Friends to support the amendments.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: We did not come here to listen to this one.
9.45 pm

Mr. Hughes: I assumed that Labour Members had arrived in force to listen to my speech. I thought that it must be my Christmas bonus.
The Liberal party supports the amendments, although they are second best. It should be up to each local authority to decide whether the right to buy should apply in its area as it is the best judge of whether it has sufficient properties available. The amendment would at least make the Government start looking at the individual needs of local authorities. The same picture does not apply from Cornwall to Northumberland or from Liverpool to London. The sooner the Government realise that imposed centralised legislation, which will force local authorities to sell what would normally be considered their best housing stock and prevent people who are waiting for housing or are in local authority housing from moving to good quality accommodation — as much in small authorities with small amounts of public housing as in those with enormous amounts—the sooner they will be doing a service to public sector tenants and other tenants.
Sadly, the proposals fail. The amendment would improve the measure, although not nearly as democratically as we would wish.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is the official spokesman of the Liberal party, and is supported by one of his hon.


Friends—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)—has confirmed yet again that the Liberal party is in favour both of the tenant's right to buy and of the local authorities' right to refuse to sell. That is the party's characteristic posture.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) for the way in which he spoke to the amendments. However, they are wholly unacceptable to the Government, and. if I judge the mood of the House correctly, we should vote on them immediately.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 154. Noes 240.

Division No. 118]
[7.55 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Barnett. Guy
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Barron, Kevin
Caborn, Richard


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bidwell, Sydney Clarke, Thomas
Boyes, Roland Clay, Robert




Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cohen, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Lloyd, Tony(Stretford)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Loyden, Edward


Corbett, Robin
McCartney, Hugh


Corbyn, Jeremy
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cowans, Harry
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McKelvey, William


Craigen, J. M.
Maclennan, Robert


Crowther, Stan
McNamara, Kevin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McTaggart, Robert


Cunningham, Dr John
Madden, Max


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Martin, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maxton, John


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Michie, William


Dobson, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Dormand, Jack
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Douglas, Dick
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, David


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)
O'Brien, William


Evan, loan (Cynon Valley)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Evans, John (St. Helens)
Park, George


Fatchett, Derek
Pavitt, Laurie


Faulds, Andrew
Pike, Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Prescott, John


Flannery, Martin
Randall, Stuart


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Redmond, M.


Foster, Derek
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Foulkes, George
Robertson, George


Fraser. J. (Norwood)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rogers, Allan


George, Bruce
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Godman, Dr Norman
Rowlands, Ted


Golding, John
Sheerman, Barry


Gould, Bryan
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hardy, Peter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Skinner, Dennis


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Haynes, Frank
Soley, Clive


Heffer, Eric S.
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Straw, Jack


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hoyle, Douglas
Wainwright, R.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wareing, Robert


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Winnick, David


Hume, John
Woodall, Alec


John, Brynmor
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)



Lamond, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. John Home-Robertson and


Leighton, Ronald
Mr. John McWilliam.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bellingham, Henry


Aitken, Jonathan
Benyon, William


Alexander, Richard
Berry, Sir Anthony


Amess, David
Best, Keith


Ancram, Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Tom
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Body, Richard


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baldry, Anthony
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bottomley, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)




Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Holt, Richard


Bright, Graham
Hooson, Tom


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hordern, Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bruinvels, Peter
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Burt, Alistair
Hunter, Andrew


Butler, Hon Adam
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Butterfill, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jessel, Toby


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Key, Robert


Clegg, Sir Walter
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Cockeram, Eric
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Conway, Derek
Lamont, Norman


Coombs, Simon
Lawler, Geoffrey


Cope, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Couchman, James
Lee, John (Pendle)


Critchley, Julian
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Crouch, David
Lester, Jim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lightbown, David


Dicks, T.
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Dover, Denshore
Lyell, Nicholas


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Dunn, Robert
MacGregor, John


Durant, Tony
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Dykes, Hugh
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Maclean, David John.


Eggar, Tim
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Eyre, Reginald
McQuarrie, Albert


Favell, Anthony
Major, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Malins, Humfrey


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fletcher, Alexander
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moynihan, Hon C.


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Murphy, Christopher


Forth, Eric
Normanton, Tom


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Onslow, Cranley


Freeman, Roger
Page, John (Harrow W)


Gale, Roger
Parris, Matthew


Galley, Roy
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Pawsey, James


Glyn, Dr Alan
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Goodlad, Alastair
Pollock, Alexander


Gow, Ian
Porter, Barry


Gower, Sir Raymond
Powley, John


Grant, Sir Anthony
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry
Raffan, Keith


Gregory, Conal
Renton, Tim


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Ground, Patrick
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Grylls, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hanley, Jeremy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Harris, David
Ryder, Richard


Harvey, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hawksley, Warren
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hayes, J.
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hayhoe, Barney
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hayward, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Heddle, John
Shersby, Michael


Henderson, Barry
Silvester, Fred


Hickmet, Richard
Sims, Roger




Skeet, T. H. H.
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Speed, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Spencer, D.
Waddington, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stern, Michael
Walden, George


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Ward, John


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stokes, John
Warren, Kenneth


Stradling Thomas, J.
Watson, John


Sumberg, David
Watts, John


Taylor, Rt Hon John David
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Whitney, Raymond


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Terlezki, Stefan
Woodcock, Michael


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thornton, Malcolm



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Ian Lang and


Trippier, David
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Division No. 119]
[9.45 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Alton, David
George, Bruce


Anderson, Donald
God man, Dr Norman


Archer. Rt Hon Peter
Golding, John


Ashton, Joe
Gould, Bryan


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Barnett, Guy
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Barron, Kevin
Hardy, Peter


Beith, A. J.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bell, Stuart
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Haynes, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.


Blair, Anthony
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boyes, Roland
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Brown, Gordon (armline E)
Hoyle, Douglas


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Caborn, Richard
Hume, John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
John, Brynmor


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clarke, Thomas
Kirkwood, Archibald


Clay, Robert
Lamond, James


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen. Harry
Leighton, Ronald


Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Edward


Cowans, Harry
McCartney, Hugh


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Craigen, J. M.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Crowther, Stan
McKelvey, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McTaggart, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Marek, Dr John


Deakins, Eric
Martin, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Michie, William


Douglas, Dick
Mikardo, Ian


Dubs, Alfred
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Duffy, A. E. P.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)
Nellist, David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
O'Brien, William


Fatchett, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Faulds, Andrew
Park, George


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Penhaligon, David


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Prescott, John


Foulkes, George
Radice, Giles


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Redmond, M.





Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Strang, Gavin


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Straw, Jack


Robertson, George
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Tinn, James


Rogers, Allan
Torney, Tom


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Wainwright, R.


Rowlands, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wigley, Dafydd


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Winnick, David


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Woodall, Alec


Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)



Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. John Home-Robertson and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. John McWilliam




NOES


Adley, Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Ancram, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Arnold, Tom
Eggar, Tim


Ashby, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Eyre, Reginald


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Favell, Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baldry, Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fletcher, Alexander


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Benyon, William
Forth, Eric


Berry, Sir Anthony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Best, Keith
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Freeman, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Galley, Roy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Body, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gow, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, Harry


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Ground, Patrick


Bruinvels, Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hanley, Jeremy


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Butler, Hon Adam
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Harvey, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW' N'folk)


Chapman, Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Chope, Christopher
Hayes, J.


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heddle, John


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Henderson, Barry


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hickmet, Richard


Cockeram, Eric
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Cope, John
Holt, Richard


Couchman, James
Hooson, Tom


Critchley, Julian
Hordern, Peter


Crouch, David
Howarth, Alan (Straf'rd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Dicks, T.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dover, Denshore
Hunter, Andrew






Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shersby, Michael


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Silvester, Fred


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sims, Roger


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Speed, Keith


Key, Robert
Spencer, D.


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lamont, Norman
Squire, Robin


Lang, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stern, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lester, Jim
Stewart. Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Lightbown, David
Stokes, John


Lilley, Peter
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sumberg, David


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maclean, David John.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Terlezki, Stefan


McQuarrie, Albert
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thornton, Malcolm


Murphy, Christopher
Thurnham, Peter


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Michael
Trippier, David


Newton, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Normanton, Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Cranley
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Parris, Matthew
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Viggers, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford)
Waddington, David


Pawsey, James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pollock, Alexander
Walden, George


Powley, John
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Raffan, Keith
Waller, Gary


Renton, Tim
Ward, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Warren, Kenneth


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Watson, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watts, John


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Whitney, Raymond


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wolfson, Mark


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wood, Timothy


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Woodcock, Michael


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Yeo, Tim


Sayeed, Jonathan
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')



Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. John Major.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1

EXTENSION OF RIGHT TO BUY TO CERTAIN CASES WHERE LANDLORD DOES NOT OWN FREEHOLD

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 53, line 42, leave out 'In paragraph 1(1)' and insert

'After sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1'.

No. 49. in page 53, line 43, leave out from 'tenancies)' to end of line 45 and insert

'there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

"(2A) For the purposes of this paragraph a tenancy granted in pursuance of Chapter I of Part I of this Act is a long tenancy notwithstanding that it is granted for a term not exceeding 21 years".'—[Mr. Gow.]

Schedule 2

SCHEDULE INSERTED AFTER SCHEDULE I TO 1980 ACT SCHEDULE lA DETERMINATION OF RELEVANT PERIOD FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS I(3) AND 7(1)

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 54, line 16, leave out
secure tenant or the spouse of a secure
and insert
public sector tenant or the spouse of a public sector.

No. 51, in page 54, leave out lines 17 to 28.

No. 52, in page 54, line 31, leave out 'secure' and insert 'public sector'.

No. 53, in page 54, line 35, leave out from 'unless' to 'at' in line 36 and insert
the secure tenant and his spouse were living together'.

No. 54, in page 54, line 38, leave out from 'unless' to 'at' in line 39 and insert
the secure tenant and his deceased spouse were living together'.

No. 55, in page 54, line 42, leave out 'secure' and insert 'public sector'.

No. 110, in page 54, line 43, leave out 'secure' and insert 'public sector'.

No. 56, in page 55, line 3, leave out from 'tenant' to end of line 10 and insert—

(b) the secure tenant's spouse; or
(c) the secure tenant's deceased spouse,

was an armed forces occupier or the spouse of an armed forces occupier.

(2) A period shall not qualify by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) above as a period during which the person there mentioned was the spouse of an armed forces occupier unless during that period that person occupied the accommodation of which his spouse was such an occupier.

(3) A period shall not qualify by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above unless the secure tenant and his spouse were living together at the relevant time.

(4) A period shall not qualify by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(c) above unless the secure tenant and his deceased spouse were living together at the time of the death.'.

No. 57, in page 55, line 11, leave out 'secure' and insert 'public sector'.

No. 58, in page 55, line 13, leave out 'secure' and insert 'public sector'.

No. 59, in page 55, line 16, leave out 'secure' and insert 'public sector'.

No. 60, in page 55, line 17, leave out 'secure' and insert 'public sector'.

No. 61, in page 55, line 22, leave out
'secure tenant or one of joint tenants under a secure'
and insert
public sector tenant or one of the joint tenants under a public sector'.

No. 62, in page 55, line 24, leave out 'secure' and insert 'public sector'.

No. 63, in page 55, line 39, leave out from first 'a' to 'unless' in line 41 and insert
'public sector tenant or an armed forces occupier'.

No. 65, in page 55, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 56 and insert—
6.—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a tenancy under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling is a public sector tenancy at any time when the conditions described below as the landlord condition and the tenant condition are satisfied, but subject to sub-paragraph (2) below.

(2) A tenancy is not a public sector tenancy if it is a long tenancy within the meaning of paragraph I of Schedule 3 to this Act or it falls within paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983.

(3) The landlord condition is that the interest of the landlord belongs to—

(a) a local authority within the meaning of section 50(1) of this Act, a county council, a district council within the meaning of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 or, in Scotland, a regional, district or islands council, a joint board or joint committee of such a council or the common good of such a council or any trust under its control;
(b) the Housing Corporation;
(c) the Scottish Special Housing Association;
(d) the Northern Ireland Housing Executive;
(e) a development corporation established by an order made or having effect as if made under the New Towns Act 1981 or the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 or an urban development corporation within the meaning of Part XVI of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980;
(f) the Commission for the New Towns;
(g) the Development Board for Rural Wales;
(h) a housing association which falls within paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section 15 of the 1977 Act but does not fall within paragraph (d) of that subsection;
(i) a housing association which falls within paragraph (e) of section 10(2) of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 but is not a registered society within the meaning of section 11 of that Act;
(j) a registered housing association within the meaning of Chapter II of Part II of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983;
(k) a housing co-operative within the meaning of Schedule 20 to this Act or section 5 of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975; or
(l) any predecessor of any person falling within the foregoing paragraphs;

or that, in such circumstances as may be prescribed for the purposes of this Schedule by order of the Secretary of State, the interest of the landlord belongs to such other person or persons as may be so prescribed.

(4) The tenant condition is that the tenant is an individual and occupies the dwelling-house as his only or principal home or, where the tenancy is a joint tenancy, each of the joint tenants is an individual and at least one of them occupies the dwelling-house as his only or principal home.

(5) References in this paragraph to a public sector tenancy or a public sector tenant are, in relation to any time before the commencement of Part I of the 1983 Act, references to a tenancy which would have been a public sector tenancy if that Part had then been in force or to a person who would have then been a public sector tenant; and for the purpose of determining whether a person would have been a public sector tenant and his tenancy a public sector tenancy, a housing association shall be deemed to have been registered under Part II of the 1974 Act, or Chapter II of Part VII of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, if it is or was so registered at any later time.

(6) Where a person who is not the tenant of a dwelling-house has a licence (whether or not granted for a consideration) to occupy the dwelling-house and the circumstances are such that, if the licence were a tenancy, it would be a public sector tenancy, then, subject to sub-paragraph (7) below, this Schedule applies to the licence as it applies to a public sector tenancy and, as so applying, has effect as if expressions appropriate to a licence were substituted for "landlord", "tenant", "public sector tenant", "tenancy" and "public sector tenancy".

(7) Sub-paragraph (6) above does not apply to a licence which was granted as a temporary expedient to a person who entered a dwelling-house or any other land as a trespasser (whether or not before another licence to occupy that or another dwelling-house had been granted to him).'.

No. 66, in page 56, line 19 at end insert—
armed forces occupier" means a person who occupies accommodation provided for him as a member of the regular armed forces of the Crown;'.

No. 67, in page 56, line 21 leave out 'or'.

No. 68, in page 56, line 23 after '1980', insert'

or the right to buy conferred by Chapter I of Part II of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983'.

No. 69, in page 56 leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—
public sector tenant" means a tenant under a public sector tenancy;'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Schedule 3

TERMS OF A SHARED OWNERSHIP LEASE

Amendments made: No. 114, in page 58, line 32 after 'section', insert '18A(1) or'.

No. 115, in page 63, line 27 after 'section', insert '18A(1) or'—[Mr. Gow.]

Schedule 4

SERVICE CHARGES IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN HOUSES

Mr. Tim Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 67, line 17 after 'firm', insert
'all the partners of which are qualified accountants'.
In the interests of brevity, I shall not bore the House with the important underlying arguments. I simply ask my hon. Friend whether he is able to respond favourably.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Having considered the amendment carefully, we have come to the conclusion that there is a case for an amendment to paragraph 11 of schedule 4. However, my hon. Friend's amendment is technically defective. If he will withdraw it, we shall consider bringing forward a suitable one in another place.

Mr. Smith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 5

VESTING OF MORTGAGED DWELLING-HOUSE IN LOCAL AUTHORITY ETC.

Amendments made: No. 84, in page 68, line 45 at end insert
'on the assumption that any liability under the covenant required by section 104B(2) of the 1957 Act, section 8(1) of the 1980 Act or paragraph 6(1) or 7(1) of Schedule 3 to this Act or any provision of the conveyance or grant to the like effect would be discharged by the mortgagor'.

No. 85, in page 69, line 11 leave out
'such a covenant as is mentioned in' and insert 'the covenant required by'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Schedule 10

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 73, in page 78, line 38 at end insert—
'The Airports Authority Act 1975

2A. In section 19(2) of the Airports Authority Act 1975 (application of enactments relating to statutory undertakers) for the words "shall apply in relation to the Authority as it applies" there shall be substituted the words "and section 71 of that Act (which exempts such buildings from building regulations) shall apply in relation to the Authority as they apply" and for the words "(which excludes" there shall be substituted the words "and the proviso to the said section 71 (which exclude".'.

No. 86, in page 79, line 2 leave out 'Housing and Building Control Act 1983' and insert '1983 Act'.
No. 87, in page 79, line 14 leave out 'Housing and Building Control Act 1983' and insert '1983 Act'.
No. 88, in page 79, line 33 leave out 'Housing and Building Control Act 1983' and insert '1983 Act'.
No. 108. in page 80, line 4 at end insert—

'8A.—(1) Section 18A of that Act (dwelling-houses suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age) shall have effect as if any reference to Chapter 1 of Part I of that Act included a reference to Part I of this Act.
(2) Where that section applies in relation to the grant of a shared ownership lease by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, it shall also have effect as if—

(a) in subsections (2) and (7) for the words "section 8(3A) of this Act" there were substituted the words "paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 3 to the 1983 Act";
(b) in subsection (3) for the words "section 8(1) of this Act" there were substituted the words "paragraph 6(1) or 7(1) of Schedule 3 to the 1983 Act";
(c) in subsection (4) for the words "subsection (3A) of section 8 of this Act" there were substituted the words "sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the 1983 Act" and for the words "subsection (1) of that section" there were substituted the words "subparagraph (1) of that paragraph or paragraph 7(1) of that Schedule";
(d) in subsection (b) for the words "section 8(3A)(d) or (e) of this Act" there were substituted the words "paragraph 6(5)(d) or (e) of Schedule 3 to the 1983 Act"; and
(e) in subsection (7), in the definition of "relevant disposal" for the words "section 8 of this Act" there were substituted the words "paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the 1983 Act".'.



No. 89, in page 80, leave out lines 12 to 23 and insert—

(a) in subsections (2), (4) and (12) for the words "section 8(3A) of this Act" there were substituted the words "paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 3 to the 1983 Act";

(b) in subsection (6) for the words "section 8(1) of this Act" there were substituted the words "paragraph 6(1) or 7(1) of Schedule 3 to the 1983 Act";
(c) in subsection (7) for the words "subsection (3A) of section 8 of this Act" there were substituted the words "sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the 1983 Act" and for the words "subsection (1) of that section" there were substituted the words "sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph or paragraph 7(1) of that Schedule";
(d) in subsection (11) for the words "section 8(3A)(d) or (e) of this Act" there were substituted the words "paragraph 6(5)(d) or (e) of Schedule 3 to the 1983 Act"; and
(e) in subsection (12), in the definition of "relevant disposal" for the words "section 8 of this Act" there were substituted the words "paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the 1983 Act."'.


No. 99, in page 82, line 6, at end insert—
'14A. In section 27(3) of that Act (interpretation of Chapter I), for the words "Chapter II", in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "Part I of the 1983 Act", after the words "Chapter II", in the second place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "and that Part" and for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

(a) a predecessor of a local authority within the definition in section 50(1) shall be deemed to have been such an authority;
(b) a predecessor of a county council shall be deemed to have been such a council; and
(c) a housing association shall be deemed to have been registered under Part II of the 1974 Act if it is or was so registered at any later time".'


No. 90, in page 82, line 11, at end insert—
'15A. At the end of section 150 of that Act (interpretaton) there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'the 1983 Act' means the Housing and Building Control Act 1983'.
No. 112, in page 82, line 11, at end insert—
'15A. In section 110(1) of that Act (local authority mortgage interest rates) at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words "or section 19 of the 1983 Act".'
No. 91, in page 82, line 16, leave out 'Housing and Building Control Act 1983' and insert '1983 Act'.
No. 113, in page 82, leave out line 18 and insert—

'(1) In paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 to that Act (conveyance of freehold and grant of lease) for the words "section 19" there shall be substitued the words "section 18A or 19".
(2) Part IV of that Schedule.'.


No. 74, in page 82, line 21, leave out '1(1)' and insert '1(2A)'.
No. 92, in page 82, line 23, leave out 'Housing and Building Control Act 1983' and insert '1983 Act'.
No. 100, in page 82, line 24, at end insert—

'(2) In paragraph 2(1) of that Schedule for paragraphs (a) to (e) there shall be substituted the words "a body specified in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 to this Act".'.


No. 75, in page 82, line 24, at end insert—
'The Civil Aviation Act 1982
19. In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 2 to the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (application of enactments relating to statutory undertakers etc.) for the words "shall apply in relation to the CAA as it applies" there shall be substituted the words "and section 71 of that Act (which exempts such buildings from building regulations shall apply in relation to the CAA as they apply" and for the words "(which excludes" there shall be substituted the words "and the proviso to the said section 71 (which exclude".'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Schedule 11

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 76, in page 84, line 11. column 3, at beginning insert—
'Section 61(5).
Section 63(6) and (7)'.
No. 77, in page 84, line 21, column 3, after '10', insert—
'in the third column of the entry relating to the Public Health Act 1936, the words "Section 71", the entry relating to the Education Act 1944 and'.
No. 78, in page 84, line 25, column 3, at end insert—
'and "and 71".'.
No. 79, in page 84, line 25, at end insert—
'1975 c. 78. The Airports Authority Act Section 25(10).' 1975
No. 101, in page 84, line 26, column 3 at beginning insert—
'Section 2(5).'.
No. 102, in page 84, line 33, column 3 at end insert—
'In section 28(2), paragraph (d) and the word "or" immediately preceding that paragraph.'
No. 103, in page 84, line 33, column 3 at end insert—
'In Schedule 1, in Part I. paragraph 5.'.
No. 104, in page 84, line 38, column 3 at end insert—
'In Schedule 3, paragraph 3.'.
No. 105, in page 84, line 38 at end insert—

'1980 c.65.
The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
In section 156, subsection (1) and in subsection (2)(b), the words from "and" onwards.'—[Mr. Gow.]

Order for Third Reading read.

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Housing and Building Control Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Neubert.]

10 pm

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In our election manifesto, we described the Housing Act 1980 as
the biggest single step towards a home-owning democracy ever taken.
We also commented that it was
the largest transfer of property from the State to the individual.
The Housing and Building Control Bill is another giant step in the Government's goal to make a reality of a nationwide property-owning democracy.
Under the Bill's provisions, we give 50,000 tenants, where the landlord owns only a leasehold, the right to buy. We give to 400,000 long-term tenants an entitlement to a higher discount, amounting to 60 per cent. after 30 years' tenancy. We reduce the qualifying period from three years to two years, which will enable another 250,000 tenants to exercise their right to buy. We have announced an extension of the right to buy to certain county council tenants, and that was preceded by a partial conversion by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the former Shadow Environment Secretary, who said in Committee:
The Minister, in stating categories, mentioned dwellings owned by county councils. I cannot honestly say in equity, if we are to have this legislation, that people living in dwellings owned by county councils that are not housing authorities … should not have the same right as those who live in properties owned by local authorities."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 25 October 1983; c. 257.]
I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said.
As the Bill has proceeded, we have even seen a partial conversion of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). When interviewed in the Local Government Chronicle on 9 December even the hon. Gentleman showed that the Labour party is anxious to get away from the disastrous policies that it advocated at the last election. The Local Government Chronicle recorded:
Mr. Heffer, who stresses he is not opposed to owner-occupation, says: 'I would hope that by the next general election we have council house sales in perspective within a range of policies which people understand and see as sensible'.
One of the dramatic consequences of the first premiership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was that the centre of British politics was moved decisively to the right. It is not now the duty of the Conservative party—the hon. Member for Walton may even think that it is part of

his duty—to occupy the middle ground. We have made a decisive switch, and are even attracting the Labour party to our policies, despite what occurred last night.
The Bill also gives new rights to buy for the elderly. We have included more public sector tenancies to count for qualification and discount purposes. We have taken new powers to ensure that local authorities must deliver to their tenants, promptly and efficiently, the rights conferred on them by this House.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gow: No, I think not.
We have conferred on the least well-off tenants the right to shared ownership.
We have not forgotten those who remain as local authority tenants. They will be given the right to repair and to more information about heating charges, and as the House knows, we intend to confer on them the right to exchange. We have updated and modernised our whole system of building regulations. The Bill marks a significant milestone towards our goal of extending choice and opportunity for home ownership, and I commend it warmly to the House.

Mr. Heffer: The interesting thing about the Bill has been that during the course of it a whole series of extra clauses have been added and there has not been proper discussion, debate or examination of many of those clauses. We have had two examples today. There has been a clear extension of the right to buy to a category that, until today, the Government had no intention of including.
In Committee a Conservative Member tabled an amendment to bring back the policy of selling houses built by charitable housing associations. The Minister stated that the Government would be looking at this proposal. Today I received a letter from him, and the House should know what was in that letter. It says:
I am writing to let you know that, as you will have gathered from the Order Paper, the Government have decided not to propose such a new clause.
I thought that that was good, that the Government were being sensible, that they had clearly recognised that they were not likely to get the measure through the other place, and were recognising the strength of the argument However, the letter goes on:
Instead, we are proposing to introduce a scheme that will enable tenants of charitable associations, whose dwelling had been provided with housing association grant and whose landlord has declined to sell voluntarily, to buy a dwelling on the open market within certain price limits either outright or on shared ownership terms with a discount funded out of housing association grants.
My hon. Friends and I think that this is scandalous. It is bringing back the previous suggestion in a different way, but none the less it will affect the charitable housing associations because it will be:
funded out of housing association grants.
The letter continues:
The new clause will be introduced in the House of Lords for technical reasons.
I hope that when the Government get to that stage the House of Lords will turn that clown.
Contrary to what the Minister was saying, this is a bad Bill. The main reason for this is that it is irrelevant to housing and building needs. It is just one further example


of the dogmatism of the Government—a dogmatism that puts the interest of people making profits first and the needs of the people second.
As the Minister pointed out, I have said that the Labour party is not against, and never has been against, people buying their own homes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members are laughing and clearly do not understand that millions of people who voted for the Labour party in the last election are home owners, and understood that very well. We have said repeatedly that we are against people buying their homes in areas where there is still great housing need.
The sale of pensioners' homes is another issue that has been sprung upon us. The result of the policy is that homes will be removed from the housing stock that are possibly required more than any other group of homes. Local authorities are always having to search for pensioners' homes to meet the needs of the elderly. However, the Government have adopted the policy of selling these homes. That is the result of their dogmatic attitude.
The Bill includes the right-to-repair provisions. The Opposition are in favour of the right to repair. That is stated clearly in the Labour party's manifesto and we fought the election with that statement in it. The right to repair is clearly our policy. However, we want a genuine right to repair. In Committee we tabled amendment after amendment that would have created a genuine right to repair but not one of the amendments was accepted by the Government. Instead, we have something very different from a genuine right to repair.
We wanted tenants to have the right to have repairs effected, if the local authority failed to do so, by outside contractors and then to have the right to send the bill to the authority for it to pay the full cost up to a certain level. That amendment was not accepted. The tenant will now have to pay and then seek payment from the council. This may result in court arguments and there will be genuine delays and real hardship. This is a recipe for repairs not being carried out. We have pointed to examples within authorities that operate that sort of policy. Tenants need local authorities to have efficient and effective repair services. The Bill will destroy the direct labour organisations that are good and efficient and, in our opinion, part of the Bill is designed to do that.
It is surely important both to the local authority and the tenant that work is carried out with the highest possible quality of workmanship. Surely no hon. Member can deny that in his locality modernisation schemes have sometimes been carried out by cowboys and that the "modernisation" has caused more problems than those which arose before the properties were supposedly modernised. We felt that that problem could be overcome by the proposals that we submitted. We believe that all disputes should go to a housing tribunal. We welcome the concession that the Minister has made but we believe that the Government could have accepted our amendment.
Part II may not be considered by some to be as important as part I, but it provides a further example of the Government's privatisation policy.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Hear, hear.

Mr. Heffer: Exactly. It fits in with their whole privatisation policy. This part of it may not be as

spectacular as the selling off of Britoil, the telecommunications industry or the aviation industry, but it could have serious consequences for the construction industry.
Cmnd. 8179 deals with the future of building control in England and Wales. It states:
The present system of building control produces safe buildings in which fire and serious structural failure is rare. This is not in question.
If it was not in question why do the Government need to bring in this part of the Bill and the so-called approved inspectors? It is interesting that it will not apply in Scotland, because the Scottish people turned it down flat. If it is not to apply in Scotland, why do we need it here? Is it not true that there could be a breakdown of public health and safety as a result of the Government's policies—and worse, that it opens the way for corruption? We asked a number of questions, but we got no satisfactory answers to those questions.
Then there is the question of insurance coverage. We heard nothing from the Government today about this matter. We were told in Committee that if no agreement were reached with the insurers, the Government would not go ahead with this part of the Bill. We do not know. Have they reached agreement? We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke and it is not good enough.
The real problems in the building and construction industry are outlined in the document "English house condition survey 1981", which is a
Report of the Physical Condition Survey".
I shall quote just one paragraph:
In 1981 there were 18·1 million dwellings in England; of these 1·1 million were unfit. 0·9 million lacked basic amenities and 1 million required repairs costing more than £7,000. Allowing for the overlap between these categories the total number of dwellings in poor condition was 2 million.
That is the real problem. There is also the fact that, according to the "BMP forecasts" of the National Council of Building Material Producers—
The cut in cash resources available for public housing investment in Britain in the 1984–85 financial year will force councils to cut back on new commitments.
That is what the Government should concentrate on—building decent homes for our people, carrying out modernisation and repairs, and dealing with multi-storey blocks which are in a state of decay. Those are the problems.
This is a worthless Bill. It does not advance the interests of our people one iota. We therefore intend to vote against the Bill.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I count it a privilege, and I hope I always will, to speak in this place in a debate that is particularly relevant both to my constituency and to the city that has been my home for 31 years.
It was a privilege to be a small part of the Standing Committee, whose minutes I believe are a tribute to the finest piece of social legislation for many a year. The privilege was somewhat tempered by the enjoinder to still our tongues lest we provoke the Opposition. I apologise to my colleagues for disobeying that enjoinder this evening.
In a properly managed housing authority there should be no conflicts of interest between the duty to manage the public housing stock, the 1980 Act and the proposed legislation. The conflict is only one of the misconceived notions that all citizens are best served as tenants of the state, bolstered by the misuse of statistics on housing


waiting lists. The desire of the Labour party—and today the Liberal party as well — to reverse the wish of ordinary families to own their homes was repeated in one form or another throughout our proceedings in Committee. We heard it again tonight in what was nothing less than a wrecking amendment which, happily, the House rejected.
Today, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) drew on national statistics with a seeming disregard for what his eyes and ears must tell him are not always what they seem to be. For example, he used the totality of waiting lists and sought to reduce, if not completely to emasculate, the right to buy.
In my city's housing waiting list as at 22 September this year, the figure stood at 13,893. That list is a necessary tool of management, but in that 13,893 are included our own tenants who live in under-occupied four-bedroom accommodation, our own tenants with children in flats, our own tenants in houses who wish to move into flats and our own tenants under-occupying other than four-bedroom accommodation. It even includes people seeking an exchange. It also includes applicants from other districts and service personnel. That is not a waiting list as it is understood by most reasonable people. In the hands of the Labour party it is completely misused, as we have seen today.
The hon. Member for Norwood and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) both spoke about sales of the best houses — [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I have never obeyed my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), and I shall not now. I was saying that both hon. Members spoke about our selling the best houses. I commend to the House the following statistic. In Nottingham, of the last 2,500 homes sold, 16 per cent. were built pre-war and 64 per cent. between 1945 and 1973. I question whether that is the sale of the best houses.
We have a £200 million debt in our city on housing alone. I suggest that it is a sensible process to reduce that debt and so hold down the rents of our tenants.
We are still happy with the 60 per cent. discount, however we look at the calculations—[Interruption.] I hope that the House will forgive me if I read the note which has just been passed to me. It says:
The Scots have to catch the sleeper.
I give in.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall not give in, but I shall he a good deal briefer than those hon. Members who have spoken so far.
There are a few goodies in the Bill. There are, for example, a few advantages that tenants will have when the measure becomes law. They will be entitled to a bit more information about heating charges. They will have the possibility, as a last resort, of the right to repair and the possibility of other benefits in regulations that we are told will come. However, there is a great deal that tenants will not have, and we on the Liberal Bench will also vote against the Government, though not because the Minister for Housing and Construction does not understand my party's policy on the right to buy. The hon. Gentleman showed tonight that he understood it very well. At least he appreciated that we believed that local government had a role to play in making important decisions.
The sad fact is that, although the Government are concentrating on extending the right to buy here—not something that we oppose in principle at all—and adding to the rights of tenants there, they are presiding over the greatest increase in homelessness, the greatest decrease in housing investment and the most massive accumulation of problems of disrepair and of rundown estates that any Government have been responsible for since the war. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Happy Christmas:] The Government could be doing so much, but they do so little. It is a sign that the Government want to wash their hands of the nation's housing problems. The tragedy is that millions of people will suffer from their lack of care and concern. We shall oppose the Bill's Third Reading.

Mr. John Powley: I shall endeavour not to detain the House as long as other hon. Members. However, some of the tenants of Norwich city council will eternally thank the House for enacting one clause, in particular, of the Bill. Norwich local authority found a loophole in the Housing Act 1980 which meant that any tenant wishing to have a mutual exchange had to do so by way of assignment, and thereby lose his right to buy the house that he exchanged into. That was a disgraceful act on the part of that supposedly responsible local authority.
I am very pleased to welcome that clause in the new 1983 Bill, because it removes that penalty and returns to the tenants of Norwich city council the possibility of buying the homes that they so dearly want.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 152.

Division No. 120]
[10.28


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond


Aitken, Jonathan
Burt, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Butler, Hon Adam


Amess, David
Eutterfill, John


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Tom
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Ashby, David
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Chope, Christopher


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry, Anthony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cockeram, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Berry, Sir Anthony
Coombs, Simon


Best, Keith
Cope, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Couchman, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Critchley, Julian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Crouch, David


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Body, Richard
Dicks, T.


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bottomley, Peter
Dover, Denshore


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dunn, Robert


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Durant, Tony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dykes, Hugh


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bright, Graham
Eggar, Tim


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Emery, Sir Peter


Brooke, Hon Peter
Eyre, Reginald


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fallon, Michael


Browne, John
Favell, Anthony


Bruinvels, Peter
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Budgen, Nick
Fletcher, Alexander






Fookes, Miss Janet
Newton, Tony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Normanton, Tom


Forth, Eric
Onslow, Cranley


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Parris, Matthew


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Freeman, Roger
Patten, John (Oxford)


Gale, Roger
Pawsey, James


Galley, Roy
Pollock, Alexander


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Powley, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Raffan, Keith


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Renton, Tim


Goodlad, Alastair
Rhodes James, Robert


Gow, Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Grant, Sir Anthony
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Greenway, Harry
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gregory, Conal
Rifkind, Malcolm


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Ground, Patrick
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hanley, Jeremy
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Sayeed, Jonathan


Harris, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Harvey, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawksley, Warren
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hayes, J.
Shersby, Michael


Hayhoe, Barney
Silvester, Fred


Hayward, Robert
Sims, Roger


Heddle, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Henderson, Barry
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hickmet, Richard
Speed, Keith


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Spencer, D.


Hind, Kenneth
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Squire, Robin


Holt, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hooson, Tom
Stern, Michael


Hordern, Peter
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stokes, John


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hunter, Andrew
Sumberg, David


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Temple-Morris. Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Terlezki, Stefan


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Key, Robert
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Thornton, Malcolm


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Thurnham, Peter


Lamont, Norman
Tracey, Richard


Lang, Ian
Trippier, David


Lawler, Geoffrey
Trotter, Neville


Lawrence, Ivan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lee, John (Pendle)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lester, Jim
Viggers, Peter


Lightbown, David
Waddington, David


Lilley, Peter
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Waldegrave, Hon William


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Walden, George


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Waller, Gary


Maclean, David John.
Ward, John


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


McQuarrie, Albert
Warren, Kenneth


Major, John
Watson, John


Malins, Humfrey
Watts, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, 5)
Wheeler, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Whitney, Raymond


Murphy, Christopher
Wilkinson, John


Needham, Richard
Wolfson, Mark





Wood, Timothy



Woodcock, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Younger, Rt Hon George





NOES


Alton, David
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Anderson, Donald
Home Robertson, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hoyle, Douglas


Ashdown, Paddy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Ashton, Joe
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hume, John


Barnett, Guy
John, Brynmor


Barron, Kevin
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Kirkwood, Archibald


Bell, Stuart
Lamond, James


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Rsd'sh)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bidwell, Sydney
Leighton, Ronald


Boyes, Roland
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Litherland, Robert


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Loyden, Edward


Bruce, Malcolm
McCartney, Hugh


Caborn, Richard
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McNamara, Kevin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McTaggart, Robert


Clarke, Thomas
McWilliam, John


Clay, Robert
Madden, Max


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Marek, Dr John


Cohen, Harry
Martin, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Maxton, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Meacher, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Michie, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mikardo, Ian


Cowans, Harry
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Craigen, J. M.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Crowther, Stan
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Nellist, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
O'Brien, William


Deakins, Eric
Park, George


Dewar, Donald
Pavitt, Laurie


Dobson, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Dormand, Jack
Pike, Peter


Douglas, Dick
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dubs, Alfred
Prescott, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Radice, Giles


Eadie, Alex
Redmond, M.


Eastham, Ken
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Robertson, George


Fatchett, Derek
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Faulds, Andrew
Rogers, Allan


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Rowlands, Ted


Fisher, Mark
Sedgemore, Brian


Flannery, Martin
Sheerman, Barry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Foster, Derek
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Foulkes, George
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Skinner, Dennis


George, Bruce
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Godman, Dr Norman
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Golding, John
Soley, Clive


Gould, Bryan
Spearing, Nigel


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Straw, Jack


Hardy, Peter
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Tinn, James


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Torney, Tom


Heffer, Eric S.
Wainwright, R.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)






Wareing, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wigley, Dafydd



Williams, Rt Hon A.
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Woodall, Alec
Mr. Don Dixon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House I shall put together the Questions on the seven motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

TRANSPORT

That the draft British Waterways Board (Limit for Borrowing) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 9th November, be approved.

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the draft Eurocontrol (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 9th November, be approved.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

That the draft Statutory Sick Pay Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.

That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE)

That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 3) Order 1983 (S.I., 1983. No. 1782), dated 1st December 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.

That the Customs and Excise Duties (Personal Relief for Goods Temporarily Imported) Order 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1829), dated 9th December 1983. a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.

That the Customs and Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs for Goods Permanently Imported) Order 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1828), dated 9th December 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved. — [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question agreed to.

Mrs. Madeline Haigh

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Mr. David Winnick: A "bizarre chain of events" was how a leader in The Guardian described what occurred to Mrs. Madeline Haigh after she wrote a letter to a local newspaper in the west midlands about cruise missiles. Mrs. Haigh had also written letters to the Ministry of Defence.
The case has been discussed by the west midlands police committee, which agreed a motion stating that it was most undesirable for people to be subject to investigation on the basis of letters to the press. The chief constable has said that the decision to investigate Mrs. Haigh was mistaken. He did not seek at the police committee meeting at least to defend the decision and stated that he did not support what was done in this case. However, no action has been taken against those involved in the initial investigation.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to say that the decision to investigate Mrs. Haigh was, indeed., mistaken. One of my reasons for holding the debate is to invite the Minister to give his views on that action and to agree with the chief constable and the police committee that the decision to investigate Mrs. Haigh was mistaken.
The events began with a letter from Mrs. Haigh about cruise in the local press in July 1981: It stated:
The electorate will be forced to resort to public demonstration and protest to air their views.
Mrs. Haigh's name and address was included.
The Minister will, I hope, agree that public demonstrations and protests are part of the democratic rights which we hold very dear in this country and which separate a democracy such as ours from dictatorships,
Later followed a sequence of events which have caused much anxiety and personal distress to Mrs. Haigh and her husband. Two men called at her house when she and her husband were out. They told the babysitter that they were plain clothes policemen. The following day the two men returned. Mrs. Haigh was asked questions by one of thern who said that he was from the Birmingham CIL). His questions related, not to cruise or other defence matters, but to a mail order firm and possible fraud. Mrs. Haigh rang the firm mentioned by the caller the following day and it had no knowledge of the matter.
Understandably, Mrs. Haigh rang the local police station in Sutton Coldfield. A police officer called and took a statement from her. She told the officer that the two men could have been from the Special Branch. She made no secret of the fact that she had written to the Ministry of Defence and the newspapers about defence matters. Mrs. Haigh had nothing to hide. People who write to the press with their name and address cannot be trying to conceal their political views.
When nothing emerged, Mrs. Haigh got in touch with her Member of Parliament, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), who is here to listen to the debate. The right hon. Gentleman received a reply from the chief constable dated 7 December 1982. The chief constable told him that the inquiries by his police force showed that Mrs. Haigh was not the subject of any police inquiries. It is interesting that the letter ended by saying


that his officers, in conducting inquiries, must properly disclose their identity. That should always be so, I would hope, not only for the west midlands police.
The matter might have ended there, as I am sure that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will agree, but Mrs. Haigh is, indeed, a determined person. She wrote again to her MP, stating that she was deeply concerned about the whole affair, as she had every right to be.
The right hon. Gentleman then wrote again to the chief constable. In May this year, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to Mrs. Haigh saying that he had just heard from the chief constable that this time they had been able to trace the two callers. They were in fact police officers, as Mrs. Haigh had believed all along. Later, the police explained to her that the investigation had been by Special Branch, following up what she had written to the newspaper. She was also told—and this will be of some interest to the Minister — that it was quite normal to follow up inquiries about people who write to the press on controversial topics. Without Mrs. Haigh's persistence and determination, the truth would never have emerged over this squalid business.
Was the investigation into Mrs. Haigh a one-off affair, or is it indeed the custom for the Special Branch to carry out investigations of those who write letters to the press expressing disagreement with official policy on controversial matters such as cruise?
Sometimes when one raises complaints regarding the police there is a tendency for Conservative Members—although I am not suggesting that the Minister will follow the same line—to say that the Opposition are engaging in police-baiting. I should therefore make my own view clear. It is a view that is, I am sure, shared by all my right hon and hon. Friends. I believe that the large majority of police officers carry out their duties in a proper and conscientious manner.
Why was Mrs. Haigh investigated, and why was she lied to? It may be argued that if the facts had been given in the first place and there had been no lie, the matter might have ended there. My view is that even if she had been told initially—as she should have been—that the men were from the Special Branch and were investigating her because of what she had written to the press, and perhaps in letters to the Ministry of Defence, there would still have been no justification for such an inquiry.
What is the policy of the Home Office and the police forces on such inquiries? I read the comments of the chief constable in one of the west midlands newspapers, the Express and Star. He said that on previous unconnected occasions he had turned down Home Office approaches to his force to pursue such inquiries. What is the official policy on such inquiries? Mrs. Haigh does not belong to any extremist organisation that wishes to replace parliamentary democracy with dictatorship, and she had not been alleged to do so. She holds strong views on defence matters. She has every right to hold such views and to communicate them. If she wishes to do so, living in a democracy, she can protest publicly and demonstrate with her fellow citizens. That is not a crime.
I am worried about what one might call Eastern European habits, such as following up those who write on matters such as cruise when they disagree with Government policy, making inquiries of citizens and about

citizens, and not telling the truth. One associates such things with Eastern Europe, although there it could not be a letter in the press which would set off such inquiries.
In my view, Mrs. Haigh's civil liberties have been seriously infringed. I hope that the Minister will agree. I hope that he will apologise for what has happened to her. Mrs. Haigh's civil liberties should be the concern of all hon. Members, not least to the Ministers at the Home Office.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I am glad that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has raised this subject. He has done so in a temperate manner. As he said, there has been considerable public interest and anxiety in this case, and it is helpful to have the opportunity to put the facts on record. I shall try to do that in an unvarnished way.
The chief constable of the west midlands presented a report about the case of Mrs. Haigh to a meeting of his police authority on 16 November this year. It might be useful for me carefully but briefly to outline the facts of the case as set out in Sir Philip Knights' report. As far as I was able to follow the hon. Gentleman's narrative, those findings do not contradict the basis of what he said.
In August 1981 it came to the attention of West Midlands police that Mrs. Haigh had written to a newspaper in terms which were interpreted as indicating that she might be a person who was prepared to support, or get involved in, public protests which were likely to become violent. One of the responsibilities of Special Branch officers is to assist their uniformed colleagues to discharge their responsibilities for maintaining the Queen's peace, more particularly by analysing and assessing information of this type. A Special Branch officer was deputed to follow up the report about Mrs. Haigh.
On 20 October 1981, Mrs. Haigh telephoned Sutton Coldfield police station to say that, earlier that evening, two men who stated that they were police officers had called at her house and inquired of the babysitter whether they could see Mrs. Haigh. On being told that she was not at home, they said that would return during the daytime. She tried to establish whether it was known who the officers were and what the inquiry was about. She was informed the following morning that there was no trace of any officers from Sutton Coldfield having called on her and she was advised that, if the men returned, she should check their warrant cards.
The following afternoon, one of the men returned and inquired about a sum of money which was alleged to be owing to a catalogue firm. On being told by Mrs. Haigh that the debt was not hers, he left. Later that afternoon, Mrs. Haigh telephoned the firm concerned to be informed that it knew nothing of any such inquiry and that it did not work in that way. Mrs. Haigh so notified the police and the normal inquiries made in such cases were undertaken by a local uniformed officer. His conclusion, which was notified to Mrs. Haigh in December 1981, was that it had not been possible to identify the men who had called on her.
In October 1982, following receipt of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services as Mrs. Haigh's Member of Parliament expressing her continuing anxiety about the visit made to her, the chief constable asked for further inquiries to be made. The


detective sergeant who undertook the inquiry eventually reported that he had spoken to Mrs. Haigh and her babysitter at length and that she had accepted that the caller could quite likely have been a bogus police officer as police inquiries had failed to trace a genuine inquiry. However, as one of Mrs. Haigh's worries, as reported by her Member of Parliament. was a fear that there could be a link between the visit to her and the disappearance of two letters which she had sent to the Ministry of Defence, he suggested that the papers should be forwarded to the Special Branch. That was done and the papers were returned to CID Administration, endorsed to the effect that there was no record in Special Branch of such an inquiry having been undertaken. The chief constable's reply to my right hon. Friend was based on that information.
Mrs. Haigh was still worried about the affair and, in February 1983, on receipt of a further letter from her which was forwarded by my right hon. Friend, additional inquiries were undertaken by a detective superintendent. Arrangements were made for individual members of Special Branch to be interviewed, and it was then revealed that the two men who had called on Mrs. Haigh in October 1981 were from Special Branch. In the light of that information, the chief constable arranged for a senior officer to call on Mrs. Haigh to offer his apologies for the embarrassment and inconvenience that she had been caused by the police's failure to identify the two men earlier. He also asked an assistant chief constable to inquire into the reasons for this failure and to establish the justification for making the original inquiry of Mrs Haigh.
This inquiry established the background to the original inquiry which I have already mentioned. It also identified a number of weaknesses in the subsequent inquiries made in response to Mrs. Haigh's concern. I shall list those weaknesses as recorded in the chief constable's report. First, the original inquiry into Mrs. Haigh's report, conducted by Sutton Coldfield officers, was deficient in that the babysitter was not interviewed and no statement was taken from her. Secondly, a sergeant at Sutton Coldfield who was approached in the course of these initial inquiries suspected that the officers might have been from Special Branch but chose not to mention this to anyone. Thirdly, the detective chief inspector and detective inspector involved in the inquiry in the autumn of 1982 suspected that the callers might have been from Special Branch but did not follow up this suspicion as determinedly as they might have done. Fourthly, when senior officers in Special Branch were asked to check their records in 1982 they did so, but no information was there because of the policy in the west midlands police to destroy after six months records of inquiries which have revealed nothing of significant interest. Finally, there was insufficient evidence in the papers to justify the negative statement in the chief constable's reply to my right hon. Friend early in 1983 that Mrs. Haigh could be assured that
she had not been the subject of inquiry".
On the basis of this report and the weaknesses that it identified and which I listed, the chief constable concluded that whilst the original inquiry in 1981 had been authorised by a senior officer in accordance with force orders the original information—I emphasise this point—did not warrant the attention that it had been given. The chief constable has now made arrangements to ensure that inquiries of this nature are authorised only by an officer of the rank of chief inspector or above. The chief constable further concluded that the manner in which the officer had

conducted his inquiries was unprofessional and not in accordance with the detailed instructions given to all such officers about the way in which they should carry out their duties and discharge their responsibilities. The officers involved were advised accordingly, but the chief constable did not consider that any formal disciplinary action was warranted. Finally, the chief constable concluded that there was no evidence to show that any deliberate action had been taken to hide the fact of Special Branch involvement or to mislead my right hon. Friend. Rather, it appeared that there had been an unreadiness on the part of divisional officers to face up to the possiblity that Special Branch had been involved. This being so, the chief constable decided that formal disciplinary proceedings against the officers concerned in this instance were not justified either, but that they should be given appropriate advice. This was done, and Mrs. Haigh was informed accordingly.
The full report by the chief constable, which I have summarised, was presented to the west midlands police authority. It demonstrates that there is no "conspiracy of silence" about this case. The chief constable has acknowledged that mistakes were made, and he has taken steps to ensure that they do not occur again. The matter was discussed, of course, by the police authority, and the meeting that it held on 16 November was able to conclude by reaffirming its confidence in the force as a whole and in the chief constable himself. We share that confidence. We believe that it would be wrong to allow a mistake of this kind to detract from the overall performance of the west midlands Special Branch or that of others.

Mr. Winnick: Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to pay tribute to Mrs. Haigh, who would not have found out the facts had she not been so persistent. I hope that the Minister will praise her for that. However, leaving aside the circumstances of why Mrs. Haigh was lied to, why was she the subject of investigation in the first place? Is it normal to investigate those who write letters on controversial subjects, disagreeing with Government policy, where they do not try to conceal their identity? Is it true that this was not a one-off affair? Was the only difference in this case the fact that the police officers concealed their identity?

Mr. Hurd: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's more general question in a moment. I certainly acknowledge the persistence which Mrs. Haigh understandably showed in this matter, supported by my right hon. Friend, which helped to bring the facts to light. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said a few moments ago—that one conclusion of the chief constable was that the original information did not warrant the attention that it was given. If he studies that sentence, he will see its implications for his question.
The fact that someone holds particular opinions cannot, by itself, justify action by the police. Special Branch inquiries are made within the framework of its specific responsibilities. They arise fundamentally from the chief officer's responsibility for the preservation of the Queen's peace. For that purpose, Special Branch officers may gather information about threats to public order, espionage, acts of terrorism, sabotage, and the action of subversive individuals and organisations. Special Branch officers may also provide armed personal protection for


people at risk, undertake functions at courts in connection with terrorists and other criminals, and undertake inquiries in relation to naturalisation and immigration.
The hon. Gentleman asked me specific questions about the operations of the Special Branch, which I cannot answer, because the nature of the work means that, unlike most other police work, it cannot be open to similar public scrutiny. Successive Governments, and chief officers of police throughout the country, have recognised that it would not be in the public interest to give public accounts of security matters. If they did, the effectiveness of the work of Special Branch officers would be jeopardised or damaged.
Each police force in England and Wales has its own Special Branch, but the Metropolitan Police Special Branch has responsibility for Irish Republican extremist activity throughout Great Britain. Each Special Branch is responsible only for what goes on in the area in which it operates. Members of Special Branches are police officers who are subject to the same terms and conditions of service, including the same discipline code and complaints procedure as any other police officer. They are responsible, through the head of their branch, and any intervening supervisory ranks in the force structure, to the chief officer, and the work of Special Branches is funded in exactly the same way as is the work of other parts of the police force, with an identical division between central Government and local government contributions. I wish to make that clear, not because the hon. Gentleman ventured on to this ground, but because some of the reports on the case revealed some misunderstanding.
I need not tell the House this week, of all weeks, how important is the work of the members of Special Branches. We live under the shadow of violence and every now and then, we realise with particular vividness the importance of accurate information.
As I have explained, Special Branch duties cover a much wider spread of responsibilities than the threat from terrorism. They involve the Special Branch in much routine, painstaking and time-consuming work.

Mr. Winnick: I recognise the work of the Special Branch on terrorism and pay tribute to it. However, no allegations connected with terrorism were made about Mrs. Haigh and there is a danger of abuse. The Minister said that holding a particular view is not an offence. That is true, but suppose a person puts pen to paper, as Mrs. Haigh did, or takes part in a demonstration about cruise missiles. Is not there a danger that, unless much more control is exercised, there can be abuses that go far wider than the case that we are discussing?

Mr. Hurd: Where powers exist, there is always a danger that they may be abused. That is why I have emphasised that members of the Special Branch are police officers and are subject to the same discipline and complaints procedure as other police officers.
I hope that the House will agree that ordinary citizens are entitled to expect the police to do all in their power to maintain law and order. The uniformed divisions cannot do that alone, and the support of Special Branches throughout the country is vital to that work. Mistakes were made in the case that we are discussing. They have been investigated, acknowledged and corrected—in a way that would be inconceivable in the countries with which the hon. Member drew a parallel.
I am satisfied that chief officers of police are fully aware of the need to ensure that the work of Special Branches is done under proper control, in accordance with their specific duties and responsibilities.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o' clock.